Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-18 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 5 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 18, 1998 CMR:236:98 221 .KINGSLEY AVENUE (FILE NOS. 97-PM-003: 97-EIA-26): APPEAL BY MICHAEL WEED OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF A PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING 0.64-ACRE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS OF 9,056 AND 18,915 SQUARE FEET. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff’recommend that the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment be upheld and that the appe .al be denied subject to the attached findings and conditions (Attachments C and D). PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ The subject site is a relatively large, corner parcel located in the Professorville National Register Historic District. The large single family residence on the parcel is commonly referred to as the Fowler Mansion and has been designated by the City as a landmark structure. Please refer to Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report, the historic report by Page and Turnbull dated June 24, 1997, for a detailed history of the site and stmcture. The proposed Parcel 2 will contain the historic Fowler Mansion as well as the relocated and restored carriage house or a new garage ff the carriage house is not deemed worthy of preservation. A 1960’s garage and workshop addition to the Fowler Mansion is proposed to be removed. ’~ The proposed Parcel 1 will be improved with a new single family dwelling. As a condition of Parcel Map approval, the new dwelling shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval.- The HRB shall review the new house and other structures for compliance with the Historic Compatibility Standards, or the applicable standards in place at the time of review. A large specimen oak tree on the site limits the area of development of the proposed Parcel 1. Attachment I of the Planning Commission staff report, the City Planning Arborist’s report, provides additional information on this tree. CMR:236:98 Page I of 3 The appellant has challenged the approval of the parcel map by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on three grounds. The appellant states that the proposed parcel map configuration will have a "substantial negative effect upon an important historic property in the City of Palo Alto;" calls into question the "validity and efficacy of the applicants arborist’s report" relating to a large specimen oak on the subject property; and challenges the authority of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to "approve a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act" and to base the Negative Declaration on a historical report by a Consultant hired by the applicant. Please refer to thestaff analysis and response to these issues contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 29, 1998 (Attachment B). COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1998. The minutes from that meeting are attached for reference (Attachment A). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment be upheld and that the appeal be denied subject to the draft fmdings for Parcel Map approval (Attachment C) and revised conditions of approval (Attachment D). The Planning Commission also recommended an additional condition of approval requiring the public views of the Fowler Mansion from adjacent streets be maintained by ensuring that the Historic Resources Board consider landscaping and fencing in reviewing the future development proposals relating to this parcel. Staff recommends the following wording for this condition: When reviewing the restoration and relocation of the carriage house and/or other improvements to the Fowler Mansion property oron the newly created Parcel I, the Historic Resources Board shall consider appropriate modifications to the perimeter landscaping and/or fencing to ensure that the historic structure’s public visibility will be maintained. This language has been added to the revised conditions of approval (Attachment D) as condition number 5 (in italics). ATTACHMENTS A. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of April 29, 1998 B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated April 29, 1998 C. Draft Findings for Parcel Map Approval D. Revised Conditions of Approval E. Plans (Limited Distribution) CMR:236:98 Page 2 of 3 PREPARED BY: George White, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: E~ ~SON Assistant City Manager Mr. and Mrs. Jon Pfluke, 221 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Margaret A. Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Mr. Michael H. Weed, Aufmuth, Fox, Weed &LeBlanc, Attorneys at Law, 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. William C. Lewis, 1116 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 TE & JL Conn, 257 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 DD Kennedy, 252 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Asher Waldfogel, 222 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Suzanne Greenberg, 1147 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Theodore G. And Mrs. Adrian K. Erler, 1115 Ramona St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:236:98 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL April 29, 1998 R GULAR City Council Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, Cal ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Kathy Schmidt Absent: City ieets f Planning Official Cah ~, City Attorney ire, Senior Planner Zoning Administrator ~. Dockter, Planning Arborist card oral of the public may speak to any item not on the a Those who desire to speak must complete a the Commission. The Planning Commission res ,eriod to 15 minutes. right to is a come the time on toni ~genda. We ask you of the public may speak to an item to three minutes. ,81 Webster Stre~: I am enting the Palo Alto Public Art You invitations to our forum on which I realize Palo Alto. There are a lot of other events, but I am to urge you to want you to understand that we are going to be speaking specifically parks and plazas. We have brought together a group of three very well educated City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 o 221 Kingsley Road [97-PAGE MILL-3, 97-EIA-26]: Application of an appeal by Michael Weed of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of a parcel map to divide an existing .64-acre lot into two parcels of 98,056 and 18,915 square feet. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study has b~and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Zone Staff Recommendation: to the City Council to deny the appeal Community Environment’s original contained in Attachment G and subject to the s contained E. Planning Commission Action~ appeal and uphold the Director’s HRBfor hedges and fence height to deny ion that it returns to the Vice Chair Byrd: Would staff care to Ms. Grote: Thank you, Vice Chair B that the Director of Plannin: and that both resulting lots would part of the environmental for the proj e~,,t., the Director and hi storic:~ervation adverse~ the negative imp~ site was at an appeaI of a parcel map based primarily on the fact sional size standards for the district. As a for ~gative declaration that was prepared a was prepared by an architectural division would not have a negative or site -- the Fowler Mansion. In addition, rborist’s position that the lot split would not have a on the site as long as any new construction on the se of the tree. The primarily on three items. One is staff’s reliance upon a specialist hired and selected by the applicant. Secondly, the and conditions. Thirdly, some procedural questions regarding the points, it is not unusual for staff to rely upon a professional report ’~licant’s consultant if there is no evidence or information presented that the that report are not accurate or sufficient. In this particular case, the historic report was reviewed by our Historic Resources Board, and it was found to be complete and accurate, meeting all requirements. So they did review it and accept it. The only times that in the past, we have required additional peer review is if there is some evidence submitted that would call the conclusions in the report into question. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Secondly, witia the arborist’s report and recommendations, that did come from our professional arborist on staff with the planning division. It was not a report prepared by an outside consultant. We do have a professional arborist on staff. Thirdly, regarding the procedural issues, I will refer to the Director of Planning and also the City Attorney to respond to those questions. In summary, I would conclude b3 that the commission recommend denial of the appeal and uphold the modified conditions. At your places tonight is a modified Condition s Conditions #2 and 3 into consistency with each other regarding the my staff report. Vice Chair Byrd: Does anyone else from staffwish to Mr. Schreiber: I would just note that it has been for a 1 within an office like Palo Alto’s, given the volume the identification of the Director, the hearing process aga!n, has been standard practice for a long time. information that comes in on an to in this case, and also to sign off on the actual having discussions on the relevant issues. that were contained in the letter re, denying the application. understandable ordinance contains delegated. That, review, which I did with staff and di was any basis for Mr. Calonne: I have some brief s edural issues. The Director has taken action i action He is free to have a hearing officer, and;tla~tt, is what ~A concern, the Director is the relevant decisio d the for environmental review properly lies with him in the first in~s~i~r her, 05 our interim. V~ce Chair Bvrd:~:~,th~y~,~pny a~ ~ns of staff by comml~saoners at th~s time? Seeing none, I will now o~en’~e p~b~~n ~ will provide the appellam w~th up to 15 minmes to presem their s~de~~ We will follo~-:~Rh up to a 15 m~nute t~me allowance for the original apphcant ~d ~e~. I now invi~~pell~t or a representatwe of the appellant fo~ard to make any presentation they care to~m~e. IIiiIel Iced, 314 ,iIton Avenue, Palo Alto: I filed this appeal m my capacity as counsel toN{!l ,, ewis,.oNi{ of the ~rope~y immediately adjacent to the iroposed new lot. We also ig;j~elghbors, In your packet, I beheve you will find many petitions, If you review th~ t~!~’hefore the zonin7 administrator, you will see that many other neighbors were involved in that process, although my representation is limited to Mr, Lewis officially, I found it noteworthy that Ms. Grote left out what I think, in summarizing our opposition to this parcel map, is the most important point, and it does not seem to have been heard. Hopefully, we City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 can get that p~int across tonight. We feel that it is extremely anomalouS and inconsistent with what I would describe as a very significant legislative effort that the city is going through, through its Planning Commission and the City .Council, to identify what the requirements are to modify historic properties in the City of Palo Alto. My understanding is that because the regulations have not been finally adopted, right now, modification of historic homes is not permitted. Yet, what we are faced with here because we are considering a parcel as opposed to a building permit application or a demolition permit, is a modification of what has been identified by experts who are way area, to one of the most valuable historic properties in Palo be located merely ten feet behind an 8,000-square-foot that this has no impact on the historic value of the point of view is that that is impossible. You material modification, which is irreversible once the mechanism to look at that boundary. Once that happen: are gone forever. We noted before the zoning Resources Board itself that the property is identified because of its ample grounds and the proportions of 1 They obviously are going to be totally in this a lot line to by an and property’s )ns by the Historic al significance partly the home itself. So our main concern is that in the middle citizens of Palo Alto who own or want until we complete this process, until requirements are going to be, but map, is going to go forward, inconsistent~ what is concerns becaus process in which all told, no, you have to wait a consensus as to what these its procedural stance as a parcel severely modified. That, to me, is That is really the main thrust of our There are s~ my letter to debate record. we are it is you to c( it is a should be no. letter of January 30, 1998 to Ken Schreiber and Those letters are in your packet, and we do not need ~ing to resolve them here. We want them on the se legal issues in the future reserved, but that is not what tonight. What we are asking this body to consider is whether or modifications of very significant historical resources to go rather than a demolition or a building permit. We think that is the main thrust of our concerns here. Palo Alto: I have resided at thi; address for almost 20 years, It is a similar period of time to the Pflukes who live next to me but a few years longer and to many of the other neighbors who have resided there for many, many years. Mr. Weed has addressed the primary issues which really are of concern to us. This is a very historic neighborhood, the Professorville area, and there is a unique character to it. I am very concerned about the visual effect, the effect on the properties as a whole, the neighborhood as a whole, as well as that which is immediately next to my own property. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Obviously, I am significantly affected¯ As I understand the rules of the City of Palo Alto, if the lot split is permitted, they will then be in a position to build a house that will be approximately 3,000 square feet. The proposed development, the party who is in contract with the Pflukes to buy the proPerty, is Mr. Jon Schink, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Schink has tried diligently, in working with the neighbors, to put forth a project which would be consistent with that which is in the neighborhood. The problem is that putting a 3,000-s~ot house on that lot will significantly impact this property historically and the nei is no way around that. A property that large is simply going to it. I think there is also a concern politically about the City of Palo Alto permitting a development on being in the nature of a loophole in the law where or expand a few feet on their property, yet at the affects a major property, and to have that be Planning Commission¯ Maybe it should make no politically, that is inappropriate¯ I think there are a who are very frustrated who are very tied up in the historic development. I think it is 1: Commission to be in a position to carry is going on in this community politically. and th}y this lot split ,erson who is th~of the is who it is, but I think that city, a lot of people in terms of Planning in the face of what Mr. Weed pointed out that the lot Fowler House, as it is situated ri any of you have wandered the p~operty. T~ have a lot line and what Kin really being o: ~nly lOW, itself. ~e approximately ten feet behind the the property description, and if is of 100 feet in front of the property where now it is rambling, visually, the main house at 221 house next to it and with the the neighborhood and the image of that property as The apparently there was a supplement to his report which I just as it me previously -- I think it was dated April 20) the histqri~hired by Mr.that there is no historic impact and is consistent with¯ ~(’;~ :~ ....th~S’ that have been ~.to agree wxth Mr. Weed that I think that fixes xn the face of c~on sense here. ~e is impact on the historic nature of this property. Therefore, it is our. ....~!~at at thxs pol~the project would not be permxtted to go ahead. The xssues dovetail w~th ~ienr~s:~!~!i~s tCi°m em~’; ~: ;nmdyC~ty Gerald Tucker, 1112 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: I have lived at this address for 30 years, and I certainly want to say that I consider the Pflukes to have been wonderful neighbors, our good neighbors, and we are on good terms with them, and I hope we continue to be so. Nevertheless, I City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 think that this’ proposal is really not appropriate for the neighborhood. I want to remind the Planning Commission that this property was subdivided Previously when the Pflukes moved in. (If I should be corrected on that, I would like someone to do so.) The two propertieson Emerson Street, 1133 and 1135, were part of the original Brandt property. The Brandt family owned this before the Pflukes purchased it. I think we have already seen a substantial amount of subdivision occurring to this wonderful piece of property which is certainly unique. My hat is ’to the Pflukes for owning it, and they have done a beautiful job of maintaining d like to see the property maintained in its present condition. Vice Chair Byrd: I would now like to invite make a presentation. You have up to 15 minutes. forward anlt~ John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto: been put together by Jon Schink, and includes Linda Sc~ myself, and of course, Jon Schink. The whole purpose we can put together a really model project in everyone is very proud of and which works In the process of both determining how to I know that the issue before you tonight has for the site, but I did want to go through j some of the thinking about the design the de with a desi at has Sandy Sic has really been to see if something that historic street. ;ome design work. L of a potential structure and also go into I realize it is irrelevant. Basically, the process is one the way to make sure we were Jerry Turnbull a distin this was a set occupancy touch base forward old to tried consult with experts along We first started by.consulting with had him give us a report on whether not a wise thing to do. His to do because of precedents that had been this property. With that, we moved on transient :.the Historic Resources Board, because we wanted to experts. They also encouraged the project to move of the parcel can do a great deal to restore the fine look at the are things that were going to be removed as part of the monies come forth Ihe sale of this parcel. Of course, the garage, which is labeled, will be The area ;’ will be removed, and what that really does in terms of property line because of the city policy is that the shortest side of the lot nes the front. So the reality is, on this parcel, with the split, Ramona yard, and Emerson becomes the side yard, and the side yard also will face the split-off parcel, with the rear yard being that which would face to the right of the screen. The distance often feet is established by that little popout on the side. That is a one-story popout in a house that is essentially three gtories. (He goes to the projector.) Right here, the distance from the property line will be 19 feet from the property to where the face of the house will be after the City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 workshop is removed, which will be around 24 feet. So there actually is a substantial amount of breathing room on what is legally the side yard. That was something that we took into account when we studied the whole property. We also wanted to make sure that we were being sympathetic to the streetscape, and took pictures of the entire street. What was really important, as we looked at the rhythm that was created by the other structures on the street. When we looked which shows the footprint of the design, which I said I would not note that there was a rhythm established by driveways and th~ and separations and side yards. We really tried to pay a preliminary layout in determining again how to size put a house of comparable size on the lot and keep at le So it would mean that between the house and the house been removed, somewhere between 35 and 40 feet. rnportant to then driveways did the For other elements of interest, again, relating to the health of the tree, we looked at the amount we looked at what we would be when existing, we have close to 4,400 sc feet and concrete slabs that are can actually cut down on the amount of thought that was important. We can. tree, as the health of the oak tree ~osed did, in terms of the site, and we ou can see that in the is a lot of concrete ) the site, we 4,100 square feet. We surfaces away from the oak Other things studied at the square that most over their all~ proposed desi a little lot sph~¢6 look ahead rath~traordinary41 revat re~ea mr coml: t~;~. I would .g the streetscape. What we found the size of the lot is only about 5,600 the lot lot split is a little over 9,000. It works out according to the existing zoning ordinance, are actually throughout the whole historic district. The be, of course, within the allowable FAR, actually been trying very hard, as we looked at putting together the be going onto it. In this, the applicant has agreed to a when the design does come forward, it not only will be Barbara Judy, the preservation architect, but it will also go before to introduce Jay Turnbull, the historic architect, who did the review. 1. Turnbull, 724 Pine Street, San Francisco: We are historic preservation asked to take a look at 221 Kingsley. It is a wonderful house, and it anchor structure of its district. It was a very elaborate house in the year in which it was built, costing several times what the average house at that time did cost. Its connections with Stanford are many, and it has only had a very few owners in its nearly century-long career. So far as we know, the Fowlers, after building it in 1902, did not make any other changes on CiO~’ of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 their property’, although a look at Sanbom maps through the years does show that the district is gradually intensifying in use and in numbers of structures. One thing that is always present is that what is marked on that map as a carriage house, although it is not known whether, in fact, horses or carriages really did have to do with this structure, is simply an outbuilding, as far as we know. The second owners, Professor and Mrs. Brandt, came in 1938. the property in that they added the workshop and garage spat. outbuilding. We believe that occurred about 1952. At the spaces (although the spaces are quite substandard) were was the basic change that the Brandts did make, and as in the early 1970s, they did sell off some property. standpoint of how the whole neighborhood and district us as though this kind of a change that is being changes that have happened over the years. This is an and, in fact, where there were substandard livin and to have a lot split and perhaps to improve the at the thing to do. We felt that the primary views has are from the comer of Kingsley and would be unaffected by this change. So do. ges in the living So that over time,to other is a building :that to make a change a reasonable fine building really ~are very important and an appropriate thing to Jack Pfluke, 221 Kin and I have owned the propert3 221 neighborhoo, has still back the of the subject property, and my wife years. The property in the to raise our five children. Our children from time to time, and everybody i would like 1 and misstatements that were made previously here. The sc 8,000. It is a little over 5,000, and that is all in the Planning I’~ sure. Also, in the previous subdivision, the Brandts owned It was 50 feet wide facing Kingsley and 250 long. sold the sold that lot to a developer in town named Bill Cox. Some of~ may remember he was quite active in town about 15 or 20 years ago. He asked sell him a small of lot to allow him to get two houses on the lot instead of one, since )-foot-wide could only get one house on it. So I sold him a strip of land, and this after I bought the house. I sold him a strip of land that was essentially this setback here to allow the 100-foot setback for the length of the lot I do not know why the Brandts were keeping that extra lot. They were using it as an orchard at the time, but it was not part of the property. As many here will know, maintaining an old house can be quite demanding and expensive. That is why we would like to reduce the size of the property. The proposed subdivision and City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 development ~vould replace some shabby structures at the rear of the house and provide us with th capital for doing the proper maintenance on the main house. We have not attended all of the neighborhood meetings, but we have heard that some of our neighbors have suggested that we sell our home of 23 years and move elsewhere. I was a little hurt and felt a little bit betrayed by that. We had decided that we want to stay until heaven calls. Since we are staying, we are just as interested as any of the neighbors that any renovation or new construction character of the neighborhood. We are quite satisfied that the plan that by Jon Schink and his consultants is fully in keeping with the character )rhood. I do not agree with the appellant that the new plan would. home., The plan would remove some substandard the oak tree, so in my final statement, I would like to pc proposed development have been going on for over a Commission to support the decision of the zoning be allowed to begin. and I would ofthe our project Sybil Pfluke, 221 Kingsley Street, Palo Alto: My 23 years. We treasure the nei anchor house in Professorville. We have historical significance. The upkeep expensive over the years. We do deserves. A recent estimate for the might expect, we have quite a need the new parcel is that the mansion in the manner from shabby replaced by neighborhood fixed bike have address for the last fully importance of the so as not to lose its more difficult and to keep up the estate as it $60,000+. As you need One of the reasons that we stay in the house and to care for the neighborhood around us improve very attractive. Our lot has several other little units, all deteriorating, by the previous owner, Dr. Brandt. If this were to be been carefully designed, it would enhance the l to continue :1 people wh hbors. Over the past year, we have opened our house to house for the historical society, the leadership for the Palo l many public, civic, and school events. In the future, we fully our home available for such community service. Lastly, we have and ability to create a wonderful new house in the you. 1127 Webster Street, Palo Alto: I am a neighbor of the Pflukes, and I have looked at the property. I think that the issues that the neighbors are concerned about are obvious to all of us. It is very to easy to sympathize with the Pflukes and their neighbors. We could see each of these positions if we were in their situations.. What I am wondering, then, is what is the principle that applies to this, if we remove ourselves from the personal situations that affect the City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 perspectives ~fthe individuals? We are hearing from the city that the need for historic control is very great because of concerns about what is coming down and what is going up. Given that, it seems that this is a model example of a homeowner feeling constrained to make a hard choice about a lot. It is a lot subdivision by someone who is being very diligent in minimizing the impact of that choice by providing the best possible compatibility. The city has been talking about subdivision as one of the incentives for seems that this is likely to happen now or later. -What I am ing to Pflukes’ apparent concern for the compatibility minimize the impact, why the city would be reluctant to would ask the Planning Commission to allow them to ~, given the desire to ’ It David Mans, 27271 Ursula Lane, Los Altos Hills: I across from the Pflukes’ property. One thing that I feel the commission’s attention, is the Pflukes’ right to that right, however, is that it is subject to being and to following the rules. Everything I have heard that is planned would be consistent with the thinking of are those having to do with that in all of those areas, there are while the proposed house would I this should not be approved. I think be to the neighborhood. , at 200 which I bring to op their property. To me, of the neighborhood that the house rules I am io, and it strikes me in the neighborhood, that makes me feel that an a way that is a positive attribute Joan Jack.Street,Alto: )n. a enou are neighborhoo~ in continuing and chosen and I are here to support Sybil and land. I realize that we are not close but I support the Pflukes because they of one of the prime properties in our remain in their home of many years and their interest in Professorville. They have been most gracious to . on several occasions. I support the design they have this gem in Professorville. Thank you. 1106 Palo Alto: I am here to support the Pflukes tonight. I think you project. You will keep a landmark and allow it to be increase and improve the stock of homes in Professorville. Thank you. Street Palo Alto: I am a neighbor to the project, and also working on the project. I think that Jon selected Linda and me to be part of the team not only because Linda is a very good designer but also because we have a lot of experience in historic preservation. We both served on the Historic Resources Board, and I was one of the founders of the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. I have restored our home in Professorville, and I was even on the Tree Committee. So I think I have a sense of some of the issues in working with City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 historic neighi~orhoods. We were very pleased to work with Jon because that was the process we wanted to follow. It was one that was positive, and the product that was going to end up there was going to be successful and become part of the neighborhood. His process of going through and getting consultants, working with the HRB, meeting with the neighbors, etc., is a very positive one, and one which could be emulated when we start looking in a positive way to go through this very difficult historic preservation process that we are in. Thank you~ Chuck Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, Palo Alto: I am a long-time ~ o,f~Jtfie Pflukes and a long-time friend of one their neighbors who will be deeply ~p~cted ~ ~i~e~ge. I am happy to say, after reviewing it personally, that they both are go~i~enefit~, ~ ,,,~ort the application and urge the commission to deny this appeal~~ . ,,~" One point I have not heard tomght that I would hke to a~s~th~n first look, as’,3~9~ g0~by, ~t ]s a de facto lot spht that has existed there mnce 1952. Th~o~e~{~at~mts there s~ts there singul~ly~d faces R~ona, and it simply looks out off, you. Vice Chmr Byrd: We do make t~ee minutes avmlab!e,~or the ap~l~ ~{t~’r~spond. Mr. Weed: Tha~ you. First, I aoologize for,~’ifi’~’a~)~ my st~b’~ents regarding the sq..re ootage. too t at number rom’ wor s eet prepare by staff. So if it is inaccurate, I apologi~. It w~.~j~ th~~~.city One point I want to make is that of that hearing was given. The were not aware of it. Oard hearing on this matter, no notice and who have opposed the project project, but had no points or make any Presentations before I think it point to this body, which is that to me, this is a planning through this legislative process that it is going through,~ng ~zens, considering all of the interests of the city, decides that do not have material impacts or negative impacts, that is a leglsJ~ive decision that t a whole, can make. But to be undergoing this planning pro~s and allowing a ~of major historical significance to be irretrievably altered is not g~Ojiplannmg. The iss~ here is not personal to the Pflukes. It is not whether they are good pe~pN, and I have no;!~6ubt that they could not bring all these neighbors here to testify on their b~i~£i~,they ~er~fl,,:f great neighbors and people who have significantly contributed to the th, that ,s a m, sp aoed Sous e,e. Pnuke, good people, and they h~;Ngh-fto economically develop their prope~y in accordance with the law, and so does eve~ other owner of historic prope~ies in the City of Palo Alto, yet other o~ers, similarly placed, who have the exact same prope~y rights and legitimate interests, are being told no, you have to wait for this consensus to be developed. You have to wait for this legislative process to be completed. Here, again, because of the procedural stance of a p~cel map application instead CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 of a building or demolition permit application, this is going to go forward, notwithstanding that we have this big process going on, which, in my mind, should be uniformly applied to all historic properties in Palo Alto. It is not a personal issue for or against any particular owner. It is a planning issue, taking a significant asset out of the historic pool in what our side feels is a negative impact on this property. That, I think, is the focus and not on the personal attributes of any particular application. Vice Chair Byrd: Thank you, Mr. Weed. Are there questions by any any of the speakers? for Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for from the city arborist. I believe that in Lisa’s opening construction allowed within 25 feet of the oak tree. I been proposed shows the garage and back porches to be there is some clarification needed from the arborist or if1 that does not build anything within that distance It 25 feet. I am if with a design Mr. Northway: staff report. I will let David speak for tree which is not necessarily a there, we must come in with our design kind. With the advice of our own show that we are able to do the understanding. C ommis si.o~’~S chmidt: That was the same question our fo~ but do when I read the 25 feet of the we are doing of any with David Dockter, we must to the tree. That was my statement of that. David Dc as one time as the will not zone be If~ things. were to be certainly be of deeper to clarify that the tree is protected under municipal code als " " to be able to review any development at such in.us further purview to look at it and ensure that it In o~r conditions, we have also stipulated that the protected tree that area. There could be crushed granite. There could the types of irrigation that could be detrimental to the tree. a porch extending into that zone, a pier and grade beam, it impact. We would not permit foundations or any cutting of the roots, inches. We have actually gone into it exhaustively to ensure that the gatively. Ci Schmidt: Would it be okay to build a garage in that zone under the tree? I know that the existing garage is very close to the tree, but that is going to be taken away. I believe the schematic designs that the architect is studying showed the garage to be closer than 25 feet to the tree. Do you think that would be acceptable? City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mr. Dockter: An impervious surface within the 25-foot area would not be allowed. .Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for John Northway. Do you feel that a design can be done that will meet those requirements? Mr. Northway: Yes. Commissioner Burr: I have a follow-on to Commissioner Schmidt’s drawings that we have, it shows the new garage to be apparently within 25 feet of the base of the tree. Could one ofthe lot, Mr. Northway: If we cannot negotiate a little more new location for the garage. going Commissioner Burt: There was a handout that properties at 1112 Ramona and 1116 Ramona.. Where. the proposed lot split? FARs of some adjacent located in relation to Mr. Northway: I think you were handed out elevation and a street site plan. Those are and looking at the proposed new parcel parcel. shows both the street standing on Ramona :diately to the right of the Mr. Schreiber: I would like to presentations,~ Mr. Weed. the decision some months to in the record in the that implied that there is a, That is not the case. The city has been historic.structures -- throughout The city has also, through another director’s 1055 Forest for a Landmark single-family house site all inconsistent with the council’s position. The and there is nothing to prevent this type of action ~"going add that in all of my years with the city, members of the coun6Wand various ,made it quite clear to city staff that we are to apply the policies. ~’:~ ......of; t~e~city that are in effect particular point in time. If they do not feel that those pohcles are ad it6priate, they will teFus that, usually t~ough a moratorium. That has not been the case, and W~ ~9~tY staff, are~9~ to tW ~d second guess where the council wall end up on a pa~cular !Ss ~fore that~,~ss~e has been resolved. So we work w~th the policies that have been adopted o~ ~~?~!~;:~a agmn, ~n tins case, tnere ~s no moratorium, we nave oeen eo~ng ootn ph )~a~oNficatmns of h~stonc structures and m least one other parcel map. Mr. Calonne: I have a couple of comments, and ifI am stating the obvious, I trust the Commission will let me know. I have not had the opportunity to work with you directly before. Given some of the comments from the appellant, I feel it is warranted. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Number one, ~vith respect to the fact that Jon Schink is the applicant here, I think there is, at least conceivably, a bias issue that is being asserted. I believe the commission is aware that the test for bias is essentially a subjective one, and I would ask each of you whether you are someone so personally embroiled in the dispute that you cannot make an objective decision. I am not .~. suggesting that, by any means, but I do want to put that on the record so that you can evaluate that, if you feel the need. The second thing is that there was quite a bit of information that to which the Pflukes would put the proceeds of this mention it only because when so much of that kind applicant or the laudable purposes to which he might the record. It is hard to disinfluence yourselves an obligation to do that. laudable uses I The third and final comment is, how do the sort of action is not subjected to any kind of interim Attachment E, which is the Findings, the letter explaining the relative Comprehensive Plan this parcel map. I will mention that as a situation in that the commission is makin decision cannot become final without c~ in only with respect to the character would impact the character of the provide a lot of additional would end with on the think commissl(onsider,are histor Plan go make to Ken is correct in that this ~. If you look at job of into recommendation on unusual appeal the City Council. The issues really appear to come and how this parcel map Staff has gone to a lot of effort to the resulting product that you questionable factor for the will bind the applicant to some sort of subdivision ordinance or the Comprehensive not necessarily pertinent to the findings that you need to Commissi was raised which I way~..qba~ ~.~/ mitigation thirik~is now called Lot ~r~alo~e: If’ q for the city attorney. Regarding one of the points that Page & Turnbull report, is there anything we can do by quire the reduction of the height of the shrubbery on what I part of this lot split? in the context of a mi}igation measure, the commission does have the that in order to mitigate any impacts, additional mitigation is warranted. Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any further questions? Commissioner Beecham: I have two questions of staff. Let me first say that earlier this week, I did visit the property, I took a tour of the property with John Northway, and I met briefly with City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 the owner. I l~ave a question for staff. There is a comment mentioned that the HRB public hearing had no notice to the neighbors. Did the city follow appropriate procedures on that hearing? Ms. Grote: We did follow appropriate procedure. Many items that the HRB considers do not require a public hearing, per our current ordinance. This was one of those. When are advisory to another decision-maker, it does not always require a public hearin Commissioner Beecham: A second question that probably existing outbuilding, called the carriage house, it presume. Could that continue to be used as a residence. For the Ms. Grote: Yes, it could continue to be used as it is, as would not be able to enlarge it. They can do repair and Commissioner Beecham: Let me also add that exterior, I could see no evidence that in its house. My supposition is that at some previous but the structure that exists.there now does at least from the lly been a carriage carriage house there, as a carriage house. Vice Chair Byrd: Other comments or Commissioner Beecham: I will st~i~ffby ~ ~g ~ ~, by Ariel Calonne that a couple of things are not to be consldered~ne is t~Noceeds~,the sale, as he mentmned. However from ~s~t~not pa~,~Of~0~,deeision-mak~ng. Also, I would add that whilemightoneus~revenue we may a~ the ow~}~Sf~i~ parcel ~Serosity with their house, that also does not apply he~)~{~puld t~~}~ any s~opularity issue. So whether this p~y has been a-go6"d~h~ar or a poar:o~@~, ~s not before us ~n th~s dec~mon-makang tomght. In going tkough~)~7{~-p~llat’s rd~6fig’for the appeal, let me begin with his Reason #3 questlomgg?~i~6 afi[~o~)0~<~e.Dlrector of Pla~lng and Community gnvlro~ent to approve the ne~ati#e declaration Nat the city’s action under that ruling has adequate precedent, and ~ completely sat~#~ the city’s position that there is complete and adequate aut~ty to do that. So ~o~t see that to be any reason for us to suppo~ the appeal. ~6~t[ ~ second iss~th~e appellant brought up wishing to examine the validity of the ~borist s ~ ~I~t~ink magTg Ted on the city arborist’s repot, mat also is adequate for our moving f6~ a~i[+~lSh to do so. That leaves what the appellant has indicated as being the prlm~ cause n;~ppo~ of his appeal, At this point, I will stop and hear from my fellow commissioners, Commissioner Schmidt: I would make a few comments regarding the historic lot. I believe that the historic architect made the appropriate comments about this lot. Originally, it was a very City of Palo Alto ~Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 large piece of’property. Looking at. the lotting pattem in our report as it has changed over the years, it originally was ahnost a big square. The western portion toward Emerson Street was a separate piece of property and was sold off by the previous owner, and then the current owner sold an additional small portion to make that piece of property able to be subdivided into two lots. That destroyed the integrity of the original piece of property, and something else that in my mind destroyed some of the integrity of that corner block was the City of Palo Altc off of Kingsley Street, making a cul-de-sac there. To me, again looking as it has changed, that detracts from the elegance of the house standing .., square piece of property. Looking at the current lotting pattern and all of the where this new lot would be, it seems entirely property and make it a site for a separate house. I about trying to maintain space around the property, but have been done in Palo Alto and given some of the thin possibilities, at least, for the new historic ordinance in.: owners maintain historic properties. Again, I think go. sub~ the nei s given other .ngs that ~en talked about as to help property appropriate way to Commissioner Cassel: I spoke to Ken A1 comment concerning the efforts have a very strict ethics guideline have some kind involved in something that is commission. ~We are all not speak member Schink else up se before we sit f. I want to make a ~g Commission. We of us, at some time or another, A has a project coming in, or is member that comes before the that. It is incumbent upon us to at any time. I have not spoken to Mr. to speak to this item, as I presume everyone to us and are gone over very carefully with us every year. I want to Schmk said on large amount house. Ifit So the een met. )mmissioner Beecham has said and What Commissioner basic integrity of the rear portion of this property was lost done there. I cannot quite see how this was ever a lost its top. I do not see anyone could have gotten a carriage into has lost its character. I think the basic requirements for a subdivision I would like to mention that I did speak to John Northway, also with regard to this project on Monday. As I indicated by my question to the city attorney, I am concemed about making sure that the visibility of the main mansion be maintained. I am taking off on the report o.f Page & Tumbull. I found on the last page of their report the suggestion, almost, that if a mitigation effort is brought about to preserve that view, it might be appropriate to reduce the height of the perimeter shrubbery as a condition so that the City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 public does have a good view of that house, and that they continue to have a view of the siting of the house. Also perhaps take a look at whether or not something could be done to preserve what was the original relationship of the house to the street. I know that a great deal has been done which compromises the site, both by the City of Palo Alto and by the previous owners of this property, but to the extent that we can, it would be nice to preserve it as something that is seen as an anchor for the Professorville area. I looked at this subdivision, and one’s reaction is always looking at this subdivision, I tried to analyze the pros and had more to say for them. I am very much affected by for that tree. It is a beautiful tree which is over 200 some of the shabby, 1950s and 1960s additions. It is al: increasing the housing supply of the city, be it only by comment made by Mr. Eller in a letter he wrote to us, the few remaining blocks in Professorville that is know if that is true or not. It certainly was proposed design of the house that is going in there. streetscape that is in existence there, as I all like to have the Fowler Mansion there now. What we have is a lot 40 or 50 years, so for the reasons I have by Phyllis, Bern and Kathy, I will the and pre s there, but in I definitely create~l~ ld, and it it is area was one of tfolder homes. I don’t looking at the the rhythm of the While we would that is not what is of the past reasons that were presented the appeal. Vice Chair Byrd: I will disclose recl attorney for the have heard a whoh all we inreq ~ ...... That, I feel, sed this project with Margaret Sloan, is a very narrow decision. We is a parcel map. On that narrow basis, Comprehensive Plan and with the technical ordinance. In reviewing all of the material and all with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. order to deny the appeal. about~ttiis project. c6rnNissioner Burt: last Sunday. note for the record that I, too, spoke with Sandy Sloan I would like to n(~te that I spoke with Ken Alsman at the site of this for me, an important aspect is the compatibility of the I have seen that Barbara Judy, the historic preservation architect, has lot would not be subject to compatibility standards. Nevertheless, that is of :e. I see that Jon Schink has agreed as a condition of the subdivision to go through the compatibility review. That is probably of essential concern for whether this subdivision will result in a structure that fits in well with the neighborhood. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I will move the staff recommendation to deny the appeal City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original parcel map approval based upon the findings contained in Attachment G and subject to the conditions contained in Attachment E. I believe there are a couple of modifications to conditions that we had at our places tonight. SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham. Vice Chair Byrd: Is there any discussion? Commissioner Bialson: I would like to raise the request~ include in the mitigation the requirement that the mansion be improved by that. It is self-evident why be case. est that we Vice Chair Byrd: I am not sure if you were on the review when I lobbied forcefully on this issue in street. I got chopped off like a shrub. There was no the Plan houses to address the retreated. Commissioner Bialson: I was not on the and the whole thrust of the neighbors was this into two lots would create by way was looking at the possibility of trying ¯ environment of the tree, by having While I am sure that the owners, so I would like to put amendment to the motion. t time.an opportunity, what the division of home, the mansion. I in addition to the t visibility of the mansion. I am not too sure about future lot subdivision -- a friendly Vice Chair 13 Vice~i~air Byrd: You can is then you would require for the shrubbery? tght about it completely, but I am tempted to say four and not a hedge, what would the zoning ordinance require? , to four feet in a front or street side setback, except in a vision triangle I am thinking that four feet might be a little harsh for that large hedge. not to include it as a part of our specific recommendations but to have it on record as a recommendation. Vice Chair Byrd: I don’t think that having it as a recommendation or simply on the record is going to have any effect for future visibility for that property. We have an opportunity here, and Page 19City of Palo Alto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 I would like t~ do something that will allow that visibility to be preserved. Commissioner Beecham: I agree with you one hundred percent in your intent on this, because when we looked at the house, it was virtually invisible from the streetscape, but also, thinking about the shrubs, the existing shrubbery, I believe, is old and thick-stemmed at the bottom. I am not sure how well it could take being cut back to four feet. What I would suggest,)s, is that we include as a recommendation to the Historic Resources Board consider and work with the applicant on an appropriate way to meet much reduced hedge so that there is better visibility to the when this is done, both for the new parcel as well as, I may be relocated or located on the existing parcel. of having a ~ack to the HRB and whateve~t:~ Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that point, and I Resources Board recommendation requirement would for here is something so that future owners of that cannot build a perimeter fence or allow a hedge to certainly open to more than four feet. I came like something on the record so that that that is a requirement. ~that city on title. What I g on notice that they offeet. I am but I would notice immediately Mr. Calonne: they be listed on the face of the of is that there has been quite a historic evaluation. So it might altering that !~andscaping would can go in I believe the commission do So the Historic the y somethin a num conditions, to identify that commission may be aware ,ut the role of landscaping and et thg~HRB’s expert advice as to what effect of the property anyway. So yes, it dify the motion to have that recommendation go back to ¯ " or condition may be made that requires that through restriction on landscaping or fencing, to the maker of the motion? ~ssioner Schmidt: It is also acceptable to me as the seconder. I would like to make some~.~.~.~,~:~ .....¢iosmg remarks. Ao~lly, Owen stole my thunder when he stud th~s ~s a narrow declsmn based £~er th~#~e~s the reqmrement for making a parcel map. It does, and ~t ~s in comphance ~~0~Nff&ns~ve Ply, ~n my op~mon. Also, ~t does prese~e the ch~acter of the For some naghbors, it may not be desirable, but I feel that this is still consistent with the character of the neighborhood both in lot sizes ~d in the streetscape that will result from it. It is also consistent with Title 18. In the broader sense that the appellant came to us, I feel that this does not violate any policy or City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 procedure within the city regarding changes to historic houses at this point, even though we are in the process of revising our historic ordinance. This action tonight is entirely consistent with what the city is doing otherwise. As a third point, this has been to the HRB and they have looked at it. They have considered the impacts on a historic structure, and they do support this action. In particular, they ~ort that this action will result in the removal of the 1950s garage and the as of that time period. I think that will greatly enhance the historic nature of the A fourth point that goes beyond what we need to owner of the new parcel have gone beyond any limit and the HRB to provide all possilc compatible with historic standards. So I am quite the and MOTION PASSES: Vice Chair Byrd: We have a favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote amended. All those in absent. REPORTS FROM~’COMMITTEES. None. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 3.PAMF/SOFA Update: Vice to be Coordinated Area Plan. and introduce who is Mr. Riel: representatives,~ also have in the to introduce those folks the PAMF/SOFA Brian Dolan, We also three Rathbun. Kemper and Larry Hassett. We g the working group members: sitting agen&is the commission a Process and to secure the at :. In September of 1997, the Council approved en specific goals and objectives as a part of this planning ion of a final coordinated area plan. That is included m exhibit. of the mid-point of the input framework would The charge of the working group was to advise staff, the plan and the council on a particular plan for this area. Since September, the working group, the consultants and staffhave completed seven or eight working group meetings, and staff has completed three meetings with a technical City of Palo Alto Page 21 ATTACHMENT B 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission George White, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning April 29. 1998 221 Kingsley Avenue (File Nos. 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26): Appeal by Michael Weed of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of a Parcel Map to divide an existing .64 acre lot into two parcels of 9,056 and 18,1915 square feet. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study has been completed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: R-1. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original Parcel Map approval based upon the findings contained in Attachment Gand subject to the conditions contained in Attachment E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is a relatively large, comer parcel located in the Professorville National Register Historic District. The large single family residence on the parcel is commonly referred to as the Fowler Mansion and has been designated by the City as a landmark structure. Please refer to Attachment H, the historic report by Page and Turnbull.dated 6/24/97, for a detailed history of the site and structure. The proposed Parcel 2 will contain the historic Fowler Mansion as well as the relocated and restored "carriage house" which will serve as the required covered parking for the residence. A 1960’s garage S:/.../pcsr/221 king.app Page 1 addition to the Fowler Mansion is proposed to be removed. The proposed Parcel 1 will be improved with a new single family dwelling. As a condition of Parcel Map approval, the new dwelling shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. The HRB shall review the new house and other structures for compliance with the Historic Compatibility Standards, or the applicable standards in place at the time of review. A large specimen Oak tree on the site limits the area of development of the proposed Parcel 1. Attachment I, the City Planning Arborist’s report, provides additional information on this tree. Please refer to the application materials (Attachment B) for the parcel map and the table below for additional information on the proposal. PROJECT INFORMATION Appellant: Owner: Michael Weed J0n Pfluke Applicant:John Schink Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-29-052 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Residential R-1 Existing Use: Surrounding Land Use: ¯ Single Family Residential North: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Parcel Map proposal at its regular meeting of October 15, 1997. The HRB recommended approving the parcel map subject to conditions that ensured the restoration and relocation of the "carriage house", the removal of the 1960’s garage addition to the Fowler Mansion and the requirement that the design of S:/.../pcsr/221king.app Page 2 the new home on Parcel 1 be subject to compatibility review standards and be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board (See Attachment C, HRB minutes dated 10/15/97). As the designee of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing to consider this application on November 20, 1997. Several neighbors immediately adjacent to the site and in the immediate neighborhood submitted letters and spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about the land division proposal and the potential impacts of a future house on the newly created parcel (Se~----- Attachment D, Zoning Administrator Hearing minutes dated 1/8/98 and Attachment K, Correspondence). On January 22, 1998, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the Parcel Map application subject to the findings and conditions contained in his letter to the applicant dated 1/22/98 (See Attachrnent E). POLICY IMPLICATIONS As indicated in the attached draft findings for approval (Attachment G), the proposal complies with Policy 1, Program 2 and Policy 2 of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Parcel Map Findings: - - The Director of Planning and Community Environment found that the Parcel Map proposal was consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and with the applicable development standards, including the minimum lot size of 6000 square feet and the minimum parcel dimensions of 60 feet in width by 100 feet in depth, contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (See Attachment E). Appeal Grounds: The appellant has submitted aletter (Attachment F) challenging the approval of the Parcel Map by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The letter outlines three issues relating to this appeal. The appellant states that the proposed parcel map configuration will have a "substantial negative effect upon an important historic property in the City of Palo Alto". As a City landmark, the Fowler Mansion is recognized as a valuable historic resource. Staff requested that the applicant provide a report from a certified historic professional that analyzed any potential adverse impacts to the landmark property from the proposed land division. S:/.../pcsr/221 king.app Page 3 This report (Attachment H) indicates that dividing the existinglot into two parcels will not result in an adverse impacts to the landmark structure. This report was reviewed by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board who concurred with its conclusions and who recommended that the Director of Planing and Community Environment. approve the parcel map with conditions as indicated in the "Background" section above. Using the historical report and the recommendations of the Historic Resources Board as a basis, staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment J) concluding that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the project if the proposed mitigation measures are implemented. The appellant also calls into question the "validity and efficacy of the applicants arborist’s report" relating to a large specimen Oak on the subject property. The applicant did not provide an arborist report to the City, however, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff identified this tree as a significant biological resource and requested the City Planning Arborist to prepare an analysis of the tree. This report (see Attachment I) identifies potential impacts relating to future development on the proposed Parcel 1 and recommends mitigation measures to ensure that the specimen Oak would be protected from such impacts. These mitigation measures were incorporated by the Director of Planning and Community Environment into the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the conditions of approval for the Parcel Map. This report was made available to the appellant and the general public as part of the public hearing process. Lastly, the appellant challenges the authority of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to "approve a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act" and to base said Negative Declaration on a historical report by a consultant hired by the applicant. The Director of Planning and Community environment hasbeen designated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code as the decision making body for parcel map applications. As such, he was authorized under the California Environmental Quality Act to review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration that related to this project. The historical report provided by the applicant was prepared by an established, certified historical professional and was accepted as accurate and complete by staff, the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board. The information contained in the report was considered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment together with the staff analysis and the Historic Resources Board’s recommendation in reaching the independent conclusion that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project as conditioned. S:l...Ipcsr12211dng.app Page 4 of the project as conditioned. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Draft findings for approval of the Parcel Map are attached (Attachment G). Conditions relating to the original approval are contained in the original decision letter dated 1/22/98 (Attachment E). PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this Planning Commission appeal hearing was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was completed and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared (See Attachment J). TIMELINE Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the appeal is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on May 18, 1998. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Application Materials Attachment C: HRB Minutes dated 10/15/97 Attachment D: Zoning Administrator Minutes dated 1/8/98 Attachment E: Decision letter from the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated 1/22/98 Attachment F: Letter from appellant dated 1/30/98 Attachment G: Draft Findings for Parcel Map Approval Attachment H: Report from Page and Turnbull dated 6/24/97 Attachment I: City Planning Arborist’s Analysis Attachment J: Environmental Assessment Attachment K: Correspondence Proposal Parcel Map (Planning Commission members only) :/PLAN/PCS/22 lking.app Page 5 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Division Head Approval: George White, Senior Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official CC:Mr. and Mrs. Jon Pfluke, 221 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Margaret A. Sloan, J0rgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Mr. Michael H. Weed,.Aufmuth, Fox, Weed &LeBlanc, Attorneys at Law, 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. William C. Lewis, 1116 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 TE & JL Conn, 257 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 DD Kermedy~ 252 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Asher Waldfogel, 222 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Suzanne Greenberg, 1147 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Theodore G. And Mrs. Adrian K. EdeL 1115 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 :lPLANIPCSI2211dng.app Page 6 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 4-29-98 File #: 97-PM-3; 97-E[A-26 Project: 221 Kingsley Avenue Scale: 1" 200’ ¯ Application :0 Applicant Request 97-EIA-26 Architectural Review Board Design Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Protected Tree Removal Home Improvement Exception ~~97-HRB’-222 97-suB-1Conditional Use Permit Variance Site and Design Zone Change [~Subdivision Parcel Map O P’roperty Location 221 Kingsley Avenue. Palo Alto, Calif. Zone District"I Assessor’s Parcel Number: e Requeste~ Action Description of requested action: 94301 Historic Category(if applicable) : O Applicant Address: City: Property Owner Name: .... Address: City: "~l~ L o NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. State:, I~ Zip: Phone: 3 ~]-~- ~7"7’7 NOTE:The APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. State: .. C~ Zip: Phone: hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of that charges for staff .time spent pr_ocessing this application(s)will be based on the Policy and. Procedures document is an estimate of these chargesand not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. Signature of Owner:Date: z wEBSTER .,,..,."Pc’-40~8,, -. ST peN. 2830 PC-28’36 " FULTON ¯ ~rea of future ~/OHN D. JORGENSON MARVIN S, SIEGEL WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L, FLEGEL MARGARET A, SLOAN DAN K, SIEGEL JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW IIOO ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 940;Z5-3392 (415) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (415) 324~-O227 September 5, 1997 JOHN R. COSGROVE (RETIRED) OF COUNSEL HELENE L. LEICHTER Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Community Environmental City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re:221.Kingsley Avenue Dear Lisa: Enclosed is an application for a minor subdivision to divide the property at 221 Kingsley Avenue into two lots. The Pflukes~ the current owners of 221 Kingsley Avenue and residents of the Fowler house located on the property, asked Jon Schink and me to work with them on’this minor subdivision. Jon and I, in turn, consulted with Jay Turnbull, ~a well-known historic preservation architect with Page & Turnbull in San Francisco, to evaluate the merits of the Pfluke proposal. After Jay prepared his report (of which you have a copy), Jon, Jay, and I asked’ for preliminary review and comments by the Historic Resources Board (~HRB") on the proposal. At the HRB meeting on July 2, 1997, four out of the five HRB members agreed that the proposal was reasonable and made certain suggestions. These suggestions were (i) removing the 1950’s garage and workshop that were added to the Fowler house, (2) removing the 1950’s addition to the original carriage house, (3) retaining the original carriage house to be relocated as a garage, and (4) assuring that a new house built on Ramona Street would be compatible with the existing house. Lisa Grote September 5, 1997 - Page 2 We believe all these ideas are appropriate and, therefore, make the following suggestions for conditions of approval: i. The existing garage and workshop be removed and that a new garage be constructed on the Fowler house lot to be compatible with the Fowler house; 2. The 1950’s addition to the original carriage house be removed and that the carriage house be renovated and relocated as a garage for a new home on Ramona Street; and 3. The new home on Ramona Street meet the historic compatibility standards. If you have any questions about the application, please give Jon Schink a call at 650/329-9777 or me a call at 650/324-9300. Sincerely, Mar~gar~e~ 0"~-~----- A. Sloan MAS:csh Enclosures cc: Jon Schink Subdivider’s Statement Section 21.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that a" Subdivider’s Statement" shall appear upon, or accompany, tentative or preliminary parcel maps, and shall contain the following information: Address of the Subject Property: ~-[ k, I0 6~.E.~ (If any of the items below are applicable, so state.) Zone district (s): ~-~, ~ (a) Existing use(s): / (c) Improvements and public utilities proposed and the time at which such improvements are proposed to be completed: ~.~’~’~,O.~.mV.A"VS tlt~:"- LiP ,7~_0 (d)Provisions for sewerage au.d sewage disposal: (2 t’l"t :5~..u,¢~’s (e)Public areas proposed: (f) Tree planting proposed, existing tree location, species, size, dripline area (including trees located on neighboring prol~erty that overhang the project site) and public trees within 30 feet of the project site:~E~" ~J~ Y’~,~-~J " (g)Proposed street lighting or any other outdoor lighting:, ~o o’V t~’¢~-~ erat.~ (h) Existing restrictive covenants, leases, rights-of-way, licenses and encumbrances affecting use of land (attach copies):. " I~ (i)Requested exceptions to any requirements oft,he Subdivision Ordinance. (Attach separate .sheets if necessary) [Most exceptions relate to General Design requirements (Chapter 21.12) and partictllarly to lot size, dimensions, location or configuration. Applications for exceptions shall state fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Exceptions shall be granted only upon making certain fro. dings, including the four listed below.] Exceptions requested: (1)There are special circumstances or:conditions affecting the property. (Describe) a : lau b d iv..frm The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. (Explain) (3)The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. (Explain) (4)The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law. (Explain) jo Requested variances from any Of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attach separate sheets if necessary.) (Variances for side existing buildings may be requested in conjunction w~th subdivisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.) Variances requested: . Reasons and Justification: k. Manner in which compliance with applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including housing policies, shall be attained (if relevant): To the best of my knowledge, this application is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance/ Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan as submitted or includes exceptions or variances as indicated in (i) or (j) above. Planning Department 03/11/97 a: kvubdiv..frm ENVZRONNENTAL A$$E$SHENT NORESHEET Address oT Project Current Zoning Applicant: Nam Address, Application for: Site and Design Parcel Hap ~ARB Revi ew..__.__~ Use Pe~it Zone Chang~ EIA, EIR l.Size of site 27,~?i ii 2,Site is owned v/ ~ented i 3.Existing use of p~ope~ty ~-~ Assessor’s Parcel N~b@r /Zo -~y- o5~ by mppllcmnt. 4.Total number of building occupants for the existing use ~ .... " S.N~r of existing parking spaces__~._. Percent of con~act spaces ~...~__ N~r of existing btcycle pa~ktng spaces ~ Cl~s~- 6. N~e~ of extsttng st~ctu~s~ Cu~n~ use~ ~ ~ .......... . ~11 an~ st~uctu~s ~ d~ltshed for thts p~e~? Yes ~N~ 8.If the cu~nt use ts Rstdenttel: Number Of owner-occupied units Number of renter-occupied units a:etaworL.doc Page ;~. pROpOSeD eROapCT, Description of pro~ect_ 10.Number of structures proposed ~/~ .... Size (in square feet) 11.Number of ~ioors ........Square footage of each 12.Percent of site to be covered by pavement 13.Total number of building,occupants for the proposed pro~ect,, 14.If the proposed use is residentiai: Total number of units ,,~,, Number of units/acre ........ Expected sales price_or monthly rent per dwelling unit,,, U/~ List kinds and sizes of community buildings ~/~-¯/A~ea .of private open space , ~J ~ Area of common open space ~J Pvovisio. of low/moderate tncome units: 1) Number.of units provided for: sale rent._ ¯ 15. 16. 2) Saleand/or rental price , ~"~ ....... Total nmuber of vehicles expected daily for p~oposed p~o~ect, N’mnber of proposed parking spaces ~- Percent of comoact spaces Number. Of p~oposed b~wcle pa~k~ng spaces ~ . Class~ A~e aw. toxic wastes to ~ dtscha~ed? Yes~ No (If yes; please complete a Sewer Discharge Questionnaire, vhtch is fur~ished by the Building DepavtJaent) 17. Has this factltty in the past or ~ill the operation of the p~op~sed fac~.~i, ty involve the storage Or use of hazardous mateHals? Yes..____._ ~o~ (If yes, please complete a Hazardous#ateHals Disclosure Checklist, which is furnished by the Fire ~paH~aent) Page 2 18.Expected amount of water usage (except fQr residential developments of fewer than 4 units not located in the foothills): Domesttc ......qal/day Peak use ..... Comerctal ’1 qal/day Peak use .......... Expected fire f’low demand ’ . al/min Ig. Daily sewer discharge (over 30 fixtures only) ....... 20. Expected energy use: ~/~ GaSl therms Electric Use~ and equipment sizes KWH Peak electric demand A. Space heating: Be Gas Electric OLher ........ Atr conditioning:. BTUH i Solar .... KWIII "~Heat Pmup Tons N~er of units C.Nater Heating: Total tonnage, E1 ect~:i c_....... Other Type: Other: Central ayste~~Individual ayst~.__ Rectrculattng Loop? Yes_..___ No..____ Indoor ltght)ng_.__ ~ OutdoOr lighting.___ I~ . .CooLing_._.__ ~ Refrigeration__.___ To~s or ft~.___ Hotors~ HP"X-Ray :. Co~puter a:eiaeork.doc Page 3 A~r po~lutton emissions (Check applicable BAAPCD-re~ulaLions). Commercial/Industrial only: Source and type Amount .... Noise generation: Source , Sound-proofing proposed___~ Amount(dBa)j,, 23. 24." 26. Site drainage provisions ...... Amount of proposed grading (cubt.c yards) "~/~/~ Disposition of excavated material A/;#~ Permits required fro¢ other agencies: k/o~/~" Santa ClaraValley Water Di~strict : Ba~ Conservation and Development ~o~i::ion ............. Bay Area Air Pollution ~oBtrol Distri~t~ ......... ~o~s of Engineers Othe~ ............ Ill.ENViRONMEI~AL DESCRIPTION 27..Percent and direction of ground slope-at s’tte- !¢~s,’T(~) 28. Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes_ 29. Existing site vegetation (please list, and indicate any to be removed) 30.Existing animal and bird life on ,site a:eiawork.doc PZ~e 4 31,Land uses adjacent to.stte ....~- I ,, Prepared b~, NOTE: Hore ~nfo~ton may .be requtred before the application forwh|ch this assessment has been p~epared can be processed. Please ¢all the Depar~raent of Planntn9 and Coaz~untty Environment at (415) 329-2442 ff you hav~ any quest~ons. a:e~a~o~k.doc Page S Staff Report: White reported that this item is a Mills Act request; continuance to next the HRB meeting on November 5, 1997 has been requested because the terms of the contract are unresolved. Both the city and the applicant have agreed to continue the item. MOTION: BM Mario moved that the item be continued to the HRB Regular Meeting on November 5, 1997. BM Murden seconded the motion. VOTE: 6-0-0-1 2.221 Kingsley:97-SUB-1 97-HRB-222 Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator on an minor subdivision application to divide a 27,972 square foot parcel into two lots of 9,056 square feet and 18,915 square feet, respectively. The property is located in the Professorville Historic District. The Historic Resources Board recommendation will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at a public hearing, scheduled for November 6, 1997. Zone District R- 1. Staff Report: White presented a brief report describing the property and the Zoning Administrator’s request for a recommendation from the HRB regarding a proposed lot split. Preliminary HRB review occurred on 7/2/97 - several general suggestions were made at that time and the applicant has submitted conditions in response to those general recommendations. Summarized, these earlier recommendations were understood to be: " - remove garage and workshop -renovate carriage house and relocate on new parcel - design new home of new parcel per the Compatibility Review Standards Board Questions: Chair Willis asked whether the historic report was the same as previously distributed? White: yes. BM Anderson asked whether the proposed lot split will create any variance issues? White: no, the lot front is on Ramona, the lot side is on Kinglsley. 20’ front, 6’ side setbacks apply. BM Anderson asked whether the proposed relocation of the carriage house be done in compliance with current zoning regulations. White: yes, staff anticipates that a conforming location will be provided for this structure. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 10/15, 1997 Page 2 of 16 Public Hearing PubBc comment was received from : John Northway, architect for the project. He indicated that their underlying philosophy is to do a new structure that works beautifully with the historic district, the applicants want a condition of compliance with Compatibility Review for new construction. Regarding the carriage house, they want some flexibility. There are two options - move to the existing property and have it be the garage for the historic house. The original garage was at a driveway off of Kingsley - this location might be used again. The second option is to place it on the subdivided parcel as described in the written material. There is a beautiful oak tree on the newly-created parcel - they do not want to place the driveway- ¯ and carriage house in such a way that the tree’s health is impaired. They als0 want to post a bond for delayed reconstruction of the garage at the historic house. BM Murden referred to the old Sanbom Map and asked where the wall of the old house is located with respect to the workshop addition. Northway; the old wall exists and will be visible once the shed is removed. BM Bemstein commended the design team on their intent. Public hearing closed Discussion: BM Mario indicated that the best approach is to retain the carriage house with the Fowler Mansion. If a variance is required to address issues of placement, she would support it. BM Anderson concurred that the carriage house would work well for the Fowler Mansion, but the applicant’s idea of locating the structure on the western side of the ’ property would concentrate the historic structures and protect the oak tree. The proposal is a terrific idea that probably makes financial sense for all parties.. Chair Willis commented that a 6-foot setback for a house of this scale may be inadequate. The intent of the project is laudable, but since this is the anchor pre.sence in the Professorville Historic District, the house is more likely to survive into the next century if it maintains a substantial lot. Before approving this design, her preference would be to see the design more developed, with the driveway and the adjacent structure designed. BM Anderson observed that the main house benefits from this project; inappropriate modem alterations will be removed. A minimum portion of the residence would have a HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 10/15, 1997 Page 3 of 16 6-foot setback; other areas have a setback from 14 to l6-feet. At the tightest location, the space between the structures would be 12-feet; elsewhere it would be up to 24-feet. There are economics involved in maintaining such large structures and the owner should have an opportunity to realize enough income from this transaction to offset the cost of maintaining a large structure. The question of whether R-1 setbacks or Prevailing Setbacks as defined under the Compatibility Review Standards would apply may need to be clarified. BM Murden commented that splitting the lot is not a problem, however, placing the garage on either side of the house would impact the openness along the side of the house. This is why placement of the garage is important. Chair Willis reviewed The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. There was concurrence that site development is the key issue. BM Backlund commented that in photograph 9 the carriage house is not particularly visible. His main concern is that the local style is preponderantly Arts and Crafts, but the Compatibility Review Standards allow any style that occurs in Palo Alto. So a house that is technically in compliance with the Compatibility Review Standards may not be locally compatible. BM Mario moved to re-open the public hearing at the request of the applicant. BM Betnstein seconded the motion. VOTE: 6-0-0ol John Northway commented further that the property line was located to give the greatest area around the historic house. Conditions to come back the HRB for design review, conditions to comply with the CRS, all are up to the HRB and the applicants welcome them. Northway also indicated that the daylight plane provisions of the R-1 Zoning ordinances means that the tallest a structure could be at the setback is 18 to 20 feet high. Public Hearing Closed MOTION: BM Anderson moved that : The new structure must comply with the R-1 and CRS; any requests for variance must return to the HRB. The new design on newly-created Parcel 1 would require HRB review due to its location in a Historic District, in addition to compliance with the staff-administered Compatibility HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 10115, 1997 Page 4 of 16 Review Standards. The HRB will review alterations to the carriage house. The driveway and garage placement also comes back the HRB for review. BM Mario seconded the motion and commented that because of economic conditions as we know them we need to be flexible and allow the applicants design latitude, but the requirement for continuing review will assure that there is follow through. A discussion of the relationship of this recommendation to the Zoning Administrator ensued; staff indicated that the process for continuing review contained in the above motion creates a third process that is not the same as either Landmark Alteration Review or Compatibility Review. This is because the Interim Historic Ordinance does not envision a new structure where none existed previously; all review processes are derived from effect on existing houses, such as alteration or demolition. BM Bernstein; would the location of the new lot line be final in the current proposal? BM Backlund asked whether a prospective future owner could resist further design review. White indicated that this would be binding on the property if made a condition of the Zoning Administrator’s approval. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: BM Murden moved that the design team return to the HRB with a more developed proposal that shows where the driveway and new house would be located. Failed due to lack of a second. VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: 3-3-0-t (Murden, Willis, Bernstein against) MOTION: BM Murden moved to reopen public hearing to obtain additional information from the applicants. Motion was seconded by BM Bernstein. VOTE: 6-0-0-1_ __ Public Hearing Comment was received from John Northway, who indicated that the applicant is happy to move the lot line over 3 or 4 feet at the HRB recommendation. Comment was received from Mr. Alsman, future designer of the replacement residence, who asked for flexibility and a limit on specific design requirements. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 10/15, 1997 Page 5 of 16 Public hearing closed BM Anderson commented that there has to be an element of trust; the applicants have demonstrated that they are trying to do the right thing. MOTION: BM Anderson moved that The new structure must comply with the R-1 and CRS; any requests for variance must return to the HRB. The new design on newly-created Parcel l would require HRB review due to its location in a Historic District, in addition to compliance with the staff-administered Compatibility Review Standards. The HRB will review alterations to the carriage house. The driveway and garage placement also comes back the HRB for review. ~BM~-~-he minimum setback of l 0-feet for the house.lot line shouldbedrawn existinga Mario seconded the motion. Chair Willis commented that if the new residence were a two story building it might be incompatible with the.scale of structures on Ramona Street. White also commented that limits on building height may affect lot coverage, and therefore the large oak tree. BM Bernstein can a driveway fit on a 10-foot setback. White; this is resolved by Public Works. BM Anderson; benefits to the historic residence from this project include rehabilitation in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; inappropriate additions to be removed, and the carriage house is preserved. Also, the financial realities of maintaining the house should be considered- this lot split will provide relief to the owners. VOTE: 5-1-0-1 (Willis against) 3. 390 Oxford: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-232). Staff Report: Staff presented a brief report describing the property and staffs recommendation that it be designated a CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 10/15, 1997 Page 6 of 16 1 2 3 4 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 January 8, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 3:00 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Staff: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Item 2 221 Kingsley Avenue (97-PAGE MILL-3, 97-EIA-26, 97-HRB-222): Application to divide an existing 27,971-square-foot parcel* into two lots of 9,056 square feet and 18,915 square feet. The parcel contains a Historic Landmark home and is located in the Professorville National Register Historic District. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Zone District R-1. (Ms. Grote explained the process for the hearing.) Ms. Grote: We will now hear from the applicant. John Northway. 437 Lytton Avenue. Stoecker Northway Architeets:.~ I am representing John Schink and the Flookes, who are the owners of the property. I will be relatively brief, and then will be available for questions. We feel that the project meets all of the criteria for aminor subdivision. It meets the requirements under the subdivision code and also meets and exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The current owners of the property, the Flookes, do not want to move from the neighborhood. They would like to accomplish this subdivision so that they can afford to remain. By. accomplishing the subdivision, they will have money they can use for restoration work on the existing historic structure, and also some money to put in the bank. The lot, as proposed, is larger than required by the R-1 zone. It is approximately 8,556 square feet, versus the 6,000 square feet required, or approximately 42% bigger than the required lot. This size will City of Palo Alto Page 1.. 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 allow utilization of generous setback setbacks in the design phase so that we can respect the structures on either side of the site. The proposed lot is bigger than the average lot on the block on that side of the street, where the average lot is about fifty feet wide and 112½ feet deep, with an area of about 5,625 square feet. This site is 71 feet wide; 125 feet deep, with a slight jog, having something cut out of it, and as I said before, it has 8,556 square feet. The area in question is not a pristine, clear open lot. It currently has a conglomeration of structures on it, including a former alleged carriage house with 1950-additions made to it. Some or part of this has had use during the residential period. The ’history of this project leading up to this point is that on July 2, we had a preliminary hearing with the HRB, and four out of five members encouraged the subdivision. They said that the lot appears to be subdivided now because of the configuration of the auxiliary structures, and hopefully, a better structure could be done using the compatibility standards. At this time, Barbara Judy, the historic preservation architect, correctly pointed out that this lot would not even have to be subject to compatibility standards, because there was no residential structure on it. The prospective owner, Jon Schink, has agreed, as a condition of the subdivision, to go through compatibility review. On October 15, we had a second Historic Resources Board meeting. Six of seven board members supported the subdivision, and gave the recommendation which you have in writing. Not necessarily pertinent to this hea~ing, but Jon Schink has hired a design team of Linda Scott, Ken Aisman, who are also Tesidents on Ramona, and Stoecker and Northway are "home grown" architects. The goal of this design.team and the goal of Mr. Sehink is to create a house that is absolutely compatible ¯ within the constraints of the historic Professorville District. We have agreed, as a condition of the subdivision, to not only comply with compatibility standards and Barbara Judy’s review, but also to have the Historic Resources Board review. This is not just something we promise to do. It is something we are happy to have as a condition of approval. I would now like to introduce Jay Tumbull, the historic expert who has reviewed this property. Jay Tumbull. Page and Tumbull: We are historic preservation architects in San Francisco. When the subdivision was .being considered earlier in the year, it was suggested by Barbara Judy and others that we do a brief study on the Fowler Mansion, which study I think you have there, just from the standpoint of stating what its significance was and whether a possible subdivision of the lot would be detrimental to the historic resource. We did do that study, and of course, the house, which was built in 1902, is not only characteristic of the district, but really establishes many of the characteristics which are now known and loved within the district. ¯ Thelot was quite large, a relatively square piece of property. Initially, it contained not only the housebut an outbuilding which we called a carriage house, but it was simply an outbuilding, and an orchard. It has had relatively few owners during the history of the house. The Fowlers remained the owners until 1938, and then Professor. Carl Brandt and his wife were in the house until 1970, followed by the present owners who have been in since then. In the early 1970s, the present owners did begin a process of subdividing, because they took a portion of the southwest piece of the property and sold it immediately CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 2.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 upon taking possession. Then they sold another strip in 1975 so that two houses could be built along Emerson Street. In addition to that, the outbuilding was added on in the early 1950s, as mentioned, and a garage was added to the main house at about that time. Because of these changes which have happened over time to the property, it has seemed to us that the property is not in its original state. If it were in its original state, it would be quite a precious resource which might perhaps need to remain as is simply to show the character of what might have been built in 1902. But since a gradual densifying and selling off of property has occurred on this site, as is typical of the rest of Professorville, we did not feel that it would be detrimental to the property to make the subdivision being proposed at this time. The outbuilding, first of all, was a very simple building to begin with, and when it was added onto, three spaces were created, none of which could.be really called a standard or good quality living unit. At that time, we feel that the outbuilding itself lost its historic quality and value. We did not feel that the making of this subdivision would be detrimental as a historic resource. We also feel that the generosity of the lot and the primary views of the original house can still be had from the intersection of Kingsley and Ramona. Those were basically our findings. Thank you. Michael Weed. 314 L_vtton Avenue. Palo Alto: I represent Mr. William Lewis, who is the owner of the property adjacent to the proposed new lot to be created. I have been retained by Mr. Lewis to assist him in analyzing the proposed lot split. I have also consulted with some of the other neighbors in the Professorville area, all of whom are opposed to this subdivision because of the perception that this subdivision will have an extremely negative impact upon the historical significance and qualities of the residents in question. We disagree that the diminution of the lot to the point where there is only ten feet between the existing residence and the proposed new lot line does not diminish its historical value. As you will hear in testimony later on from one of the residents in the neighborhood, the Historic Resources Board has identified the proportions of the lot as being a significant asset of the property for its historical value. Secondly, there is concern about the impact on a large and significant oak tree which has an effect on the entire neighborhood. We understand that there is a report dealing with potential impacts on the tree, but as it exists now in the current conditions, it is doing very well. We are concerned about impacts of development upon that tree. Lastly, I delivered a letter to you dated January 7 with attachments, and I would like that put into the record. In that letter, from the purely legal point of view, we have two questions about the authority of the zoning administrator to conduct this hearing in the first place. One is under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which provides that the Director of Planning is to consider parcel maps, and has no provision for delegation of the responsibility to any other party, and secondly, the provisions of the California Code of Regulations CEQA guidelines provide that the decision-making bodymay not delegate approval of a negative declaration as is contemplated by this hearing. So both of those legal objections are reserved, as well as the other issues that are discussed in my letter to you. Thank you. Ms. Grote: I have consulted with our city attorney. There has not technically been a delegation of the Director’s decision, since he will be signing the letter that goes out, whether it be an approval, a City of Palo Alto Page.3, 1 2 3 ~4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 2~ 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ’33 34 3S 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 modified approval or a denial. He signs that letter, so he is making that decision. Ken $chreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment, is also the person who has signed the CEQA documentation of the mitigated negative declaration, so in that instance, he has not delegated that authority. Mr. Weed: Our objection is not based on the delegation from him to you on the CEQA grounds. That is the objection based on the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The CEQA regulations state that the decision- making body, which in this case would be the City Council, may not delegate approval of the negative declaration Ms. Grote: He is technically the decision-making body on this parcel map, so he is signing the letter for the decision, and he is also signing the negative declaration. Mr. Weed: I would like to point out for the record thai he is not present at this hearing today. For the purposes of the definition of CEQA, the decision-making body would be defined as the legislative body of the city of the lead agency, and not as any member of the staff. William Lewis, 1116 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: This is the property that is immediately adjacent. Although the property in question is at 221 Kingsley, it runs along Ramona Street fight up to my property line. I have lived there since 1978, and I am but the fourth owner of that particular property. Like other properties in Professorville, it has been long held by families in the area. I would like to submit to you some petitions that have been signed by several of the neighbors that address some, but not all, of our concerns. Mr. Weedaddressed some of them. In part; it deals with the nature of the historic review process whichis going on through the City Council right no.w, an action which is going to be taking place during. 1998. We feel that it is in appropriate for an action to be taken, with respect to a subdivision of this property at this point, which is really, as we understand it, the only discretionary action with respect to this property. There are other administrative things with respect to the development and building of the house, but the discretion lies realIy at this lot split, which would permit the buildingofa new house of approximately 3,000 square feet. So we feel that taking action in light of the status of the pending process in the City of Palo Alto as to historic resources, it is inappropriate at this time to permit the lot split. Mr. Weed mentioned that the proposed boundary of the property would be approximately ten feet behind the Flo0kes’ home. The front yard is some. 100 or 110 feet from Kingsley back to the house. It is a lovely expanse of area. The backyard has a similar kind of depth, which creates a substantial part of the feel and character of the property. It is a grand piece ofproperty, and one that we really feel should remain as a unit. Notwithstanding the earlier subdivisions, there is a tremendous amount of space and character on the property, as a whole, which really would be affected by putting a lot line and a new home behind it. That would be detrimental. There is also a related issue, which I don’t think is something that has to be determined by your action regarding the lot split, and that is, where does the garage for the Flookes’ home go? There has been a lot of discussion with the proposed developer about where that would be,. and there are some solutions to City of Palo Alto Page 4 : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 41 4~ that which we are feel are potentially detdrnental to the neighborhood. So there area variety of issues. Apparently there was discussion with the HRB and/or others about potentially preserving the "carriage house," turning it into part of the garage. That piece is some 38 feet long, I believe. So where do you put a 38-foot-long thing, and in. fact, if it were on Ramona Street at the front, it could really change the character of that. So all of these issues as they affect the historic nature of the property are of great concern to us. Those are my primary concerns. There are other things, just as it affects having that massive structure added to the street, which obviously affects all of us in the neighborhood, as well as the character ofthe existing property. We simply feel that permitting the lot split with those results would be unfavorable to Professorville and to Ramona Street, in particular. Tom Kahn. 257 Kingsley, Palo Alto: I live across the street, and my house is on the comer of Kingsley and Ramona, as is the Flookes’ home. I have three points to make. My wife and I came to the decision that we would object to the subdivision based on three issues. No. 1, when we first heard about this, which was fight around Christmas time, the people who were in this room did a neat job of presenting what it might look like -- the house, the landscaping, etc. I think you probably did the color drawings, and they were delightful. Also a model of the house and where things might end up on that property. As I struggled with it, looking at that potential, it did not look like I could make it work. If, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I were to try and make that property work, I did not see it working. So that put me back to saying, Excuse me, but I think we have to go back to the starting pont and ask, do we want it to be subdivided to begin with? I went to the library, and I have a historical book that was put out by the Palo Alto Historical Resources Board, and it describes, among other homes, the 221 Kingsley home as "...the mansion home of (reading various names very rapidly), also the Widow’s Walk that surrounds a massive combination of hip roof, gables and dormers. The extensive surrounding grounds add significance to this anchor house of the neighborhood." It is this writeup that we brag about when we tour people around every Saturday and show them all of our houses. It is the surrounding grounds that add the significance of this anchor house in the neighborhood. I would simply say that we have said in our own words that by cutting this back and having a property line ten feet from the edge of that house, it destroys that feeling, that ambience, independent of the fact that there have been reductions of that lot in the past. If you took a look at the calculus of it, you could up by reducing the lot size until all you had was a postage stamp with a house on it. We would look at that and say, That’s totally ridiculous. I am saying,~we are-getting there. We are getting there by taking a gigantic chunkout.ofthis thing and putting a line down there and saying, excuse me, but here isthe end of this grand property. So for that reason, I object to that. I am very good friends with Ken.and Linda and with Jack and Sybil, but I think as a keeper of the property (and we have a house built in 1902, as well), and we have been there since 1976 as well, we have gone through .the Historic Resources Board to make sure that the things we have changed, including our windows and everything, have been acceptable to the neighborhood and acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. So we understand what bending is like. I would ask you to not allow this, because I don’t think bending would be copacetic with the rest of the neighborhood, taking it away. City of Palo Alto 1 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mike Haber. i 139 Ramona Street. Palo Alto: I live directly across the street from the proposed project. I don’t have much additional to say, but just want to underscore a few of the key concerns. One, I was surprised at the report that said that this subdivision would not reduce any historical merit of the property. It is clear to me that it’s ~ot to reduce it in some degree. It is just a question of how much impact it would have. Taking that chunk of property offofwhat has been called the anchor house of Professorville in an article in the newspaper a couple of months ago, this has got.to be a significant impacton its historical nature. What I assume is that there was no real legislation on the property aspects of this historic nature of the property, as opposed to the buildings, which is what all of the discussion has apparently been about over the last year or two. As someone mentioned earlier, duxing all this timewith the contention about what the historic guidelines should be and how they should be incorporated into the new code that comes up in a matter of months, it would seem that at a minimum, this kind of aspect ought to be considered in that as well, rather than taking some action which would be immutable at that point, and would already have been done. The lot would be subdivided, and the building would be started. So the nature of that lot is a significant concem. Secondly, as has been pointed out, there is a very majestic tree there, and it has a lot of value for the whole neighborhood. The people who are working on this property (and I would echo the comments that it is a top flight team ofpeopie and high caliber of professionalism), but notwithstanding all of that, the essential nature of what is being done, which is to subdivide this lot and build something on it has got to have some impact on that tree. It is not a question of having no.impact, but rather, a question of how negative the impact will be, it seems to me. My family and I have lived in the house a~ross the street for eleven years, and when another child was born, we needed a larger house many y-ears ago. We actually discussed it with the Flookes. They had approached us and said they were thinking of subdividing the lot, and asked if we would like to buy it and build something, as they knew we loved the area and wanted to remain in it, but needed a bigger house and could n0t.expand ours. Just a cursory look at it said to me that it really should not be done. To subdivide the lot would be a big impact, and the impact on the neighbors would be significant, and that would be something that would be a difficult process to go through. Also the impact on the tree would be very damaging, just upon a cursory look. We ended up buying a ProPerty a couple of blocks over and went through a lot of trouble to do that. One ofthe~ concems t_hat I have with the process is the lack of commurdcation. It was mentioned earlier that the HRB approved this a couple of times, and the neighbors had not been noticed before it went before the HRB. They didn’t need to be, but when we thought about doing this kind0f thing many years ago, we knew the first thing we would do would be to call together the neighbors and see what they thought about it. That was never done in this case. I am also friends with Jack and Sybil, but the first I heard about this was when there, was already a contract in place for Jon Schink.to buy the property and do this subdivision. It became a peculiar so_rt of situation. The neighbors were all concerned about talking to Jack or Sybil about this, because there was a concern that that might be interference with the contract, and the Flookes, on their part, never initiated any conversation with the neighbors. So unfortunately, that discussion has left open a lot of issues that otherwise might have been clarified or closed earlier in the process. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 6 : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42~ 43 Sandy Sloane. Attorney for the Flookes and Jon Schink: Just briefly, I would like to say that in conclusion, the Flookes believe that this is really a rather simple request to take a very large lot and divide it into two lots, a minor subdivision almost a matter of right. The remaining lots will still be greater than what the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance allow. Technically, since this involves a site and not a building permit, it is debatable as to whether the historic ordinance even applies. It was felt best to seek the advice of the HRB andgive that input to the zoning administrator. Before seeking the HRB input, we retained the services of Jay Tumbull, one of the foremost architectural historians in the State of California. Both he and, in two appearances before the HRB, the HRB and Jay Turnbull felt that not only is the historic integrity of the site not being destroyed, but actually the subdivision and conditions that would be placed on the subdivision would actually improve the site. In particular, I want to respond to Tom Kahn’s comments about the grounds. When someone says, "grounds" (and I am glad you have been out to look at the site, because grounds sort of imply a great expanse of lawns and trees in my mind), but what is actually there is a bastardized outbuilding, a 1950s garage and toolshed, a driveway of gravel and a lot of concrete around the oak tree that is important not only to the neighbors but to the property owners, both present and future. So in conclusion, we believe that this site is physically suitable for two lots. The site is physically suitable for the density of the proposed subdivision, and there are no environmental effects. In particular, with regard to the oak tree, I would like to have John Northway speak to that, as he has spoken to the arborist about it. Mr. Northway: We had McClenahan’s tree people come out and take a look at the tree, and he made a report. He felt, and I know that Jon Schink had already talked to Dave Dockter, the city arborist, that actually, we could improve the health of this tree through this project. If you look at the survey, you will see that currently, the tree is pretty much surrounded by hardscape. This is the carriage house with its addition, and there is a big concrete pad in back of the carriage house which comes to within about four or five feet of the tree. Then there is a driveway of paving AC, and there is the existing garage for the house, which already comes within four or five feet. There is a narrow band of about eight feet of actual arable earth around the tree right now. We will have to have a garage structure at the rear of the site in some location, as yet undetermined, but the rest _of the site can be opened up. In working with both David Dockter and the professional arborist, we really feel we can make this tree even healthier than it is, and it is pretty healthy right now. Asher Waldfogel. 222 Kingsley. Palo Alto: I live across the street from 221 Kingsley onRamona. I really do not have much to add to the other comments that people have made in opposition to subdividing this lot. I have been in the neighborhood for about five years now, and I chose to live in this neighborhood because of the diversity of houses. I find it very interesting that there are large houses, small houses, large lots, small lots, and particularly,_sincewe have had a lot of controversy over the last year over what it means for a house to be contributing versus landmark, and what is appropriate development in the neighborhood, I found it very baffling when I saw the original notice about this lot subdivision. I could not think of anything that would be more deleterious to the neighborhood than a lot split. Certainly, compared to changing the facades ofsome of the small houses in the neighborhood, breaking up this large lot has a much more adverse effect on the neighborhood than small changes to City of Palo Alto Page 7." 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30- 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 some of the existing houses. That completes my comments. Ms. Sloane: Ken asked me to say this as a followup on something that one of the neighbors mentioned. After they received the notice of this hearing, John Northway, Jon Schink, Linda Scott and Ken Alsman met at Bill Lewis’ house with the neighbors, and we had an initial discussion. That is when we asked for this meeting to be continued. Then Jon and Ken and Lirida spent some time working on a design for the house in order to be sensitive to .the neighbors’ concerns that something be compatible in character. They then met with the neighbors again, and had a good dialogue as I understand it, although I was not there, even though everyone was not satisfied. I just want to emphasize that the team here is willing to continue to do that and be open-minded with the neighbors’ issues on design. Mr. Kahn: In response to your response, you are right. ’The meetings we have had in the neighborhood have been very cordial and very professionally done on the part of the people who are proposing it. That is really the deciding issue for me, because with all of the brains that we have in this room and the talent that we have, which has been demonstrated in the neighborhood, it still does not take away from the fact that once you put that best brain to work and the best plan to work and you put that lot plan in.there with a house on it, you have rally done a bad deed for that piece of property. That is what finally gets me back to the place of subdividing it. i think that the house that you have developed and the site make it impossible to look like it did before. I think the person who mentioned about the grounds, when I looked at the grounds, right now, youalmost cannot see the structure that is on the property. The bushes are only eight feet high, but it is a single-story building, so all of the things that are sitting around there look kind of neat. I realize that I should not be in charge of the whole world to make it nice for me, but on the other hand,.as something that is nice for the whole City of Palo Alto, from that historic part, you cannot see anything except the Fiookes house. You cannot see those structures at the rear, so honestly, to me, it looks like grounds, as grounds that look like they could easily be grass. Ms. Grote: I want to make some comments. First, I did constilt with out city arbodst about the tree, as well as his consultations with some of the applic .ant team. He does think that with the conditions that would keep any structure at least 25 to 26 feet away from the trunk of the tree and with some special construction techniques, especially for the garage foundation, the tree actually would not suffer as a result of any new structures on the site. That, in fact, it could reduce the amount of impervious surface currently around the tree. So if he is comfortable with his recommended conditions and with the tree preservation plan submitted by the applicant’s arbodst, the tree would not suffer and could actually thrive. Those are his comments on that situation. I believe it was Mr. Lewis who said, when you put a massive structure that close to the street, it would have an urtfavorable or negative impact. Were you talking at that point about the garage or about the new house? Mr. Lewis: The garage. We don’t know where it is going to be. It may not necessarily be a part of the determination for this, but apparently, one of the recommendations that came from prior Historic Resources Board hearings. It will have a dramatic impact wherever it is put. City of Palo Alto Page 8: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Ms. Grote: If one of the applicants could come forward and give me an overview of what the HRB said about the garage, I have read the minutes, and am familiar, in summary form, with what they have said. It is my understanding that they felt that moving the garage, if at all possible, and keeping the relationship between the house and the garage was the important thing. Not so much where it is located, but that there is still a relationship between those two buildings. Mr. Northway: I will do my best to recall what went on at the HRB. I think the general feeling at the HRB was that if the structure could be saved and returned to function with the existing historic house, that would be the best thing to do, rather than to keep in semi in the same location and use it for the brand new house. As a side caveat from both myself and Ken and Linda, I think many of these comments that went forward to the HRB came before anyone, either on the HRB, or certainly any of the three of us, had gone out and seriously looked at the structure. This is not a great structure. Architecturally, from a design standpoint, it actually has very little relationship to the existing house. The existing house has wide eaves and is very beautiful. This has very narrow eaves, totally different in design, and about the only thing that is the same between this structure and the house is that they are both covered with shingles. In the last neighborhood meeting that we did have, Jon Schink listened very Carefully to what the neighbors said. There are really two locations where either a new garage or the relocated carriage house could go. One is fight off of Ramona, and the other would be pulling a driveway off of Kingsley somewhere on the west side of the property. The neighbors were very adamant that putting the garage Off of Ramona’would be a very bad thing to do for the integrity, of the street and what it would do visually. Jonheard that, and said he would be very happy to absolutely stipulate that either the new or relocated structure would go on the western side of the existing historic property. We want to underscore here constantly that what we want to try to do is to do this project in such a way that it visually will work. It was one of the few unanimous decisions that we have had between Jon’s team and the neighborhood team, which is that people did’not want this structure to go on Ramona Street. When I talked with Jon last, he said that if that needs to be a condition that it go on the west side of the property, that would be acceptable. Ms. Grote: Have you discussed that with the neighbors in any kind of detail? To the extent that you can, how do the residents and the neighbors respond to have a relocated garage off of Kingsley rather than off of Ramona? - ’ ~ ’. ~ Mr. Northway: If it can be moved, that is the only acceptable solution to us. One of the problems is that there has been no discussion with the Emerson Street neighbors whose baekyard would be affected. But for our purposes, I think I speak unanimously for the neighbors that that makes an incredible impact. If there were to be a lot split and if that garage has to be moved, the only acceptable place is on the Kingsley northwest side of the property. Mr. Lewis: The unfortunate part for me is that the only time we really have any say-so is now. Once the property is divided, then no one is going to come to the neighborhood, except by courtesy, and ask what should be done. Not that we should be in charge of that piece of property, but the only input we have is CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 9." 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 now. That is’why I backed up to the beginning of this th~ng. I feel it to be compelling that the City of Palo Alto is working right now on some comprehensive rules on how we are going to structure our feelings about historical places, and that this will come to fruition sometime before the middle of the year. It seems to me that it is compelling to wait and see what the entire.City of Palo Alto thinks, what the rest of the residents think, not just the 16 or 20 of us, but how about the other 60,000 people? What do they really think? How are we going to handle it? Then, whatever the majority wanted to do in the City of Palo Alto, I’ll do it, too. Right now, I would say, let’s hold up on it. Ms. Grote: In response to that, Ken Schreiber, as the decision maker and myself as the hearing officer, need to evaluate the proposals under the existing requirements. At any time, any specific requirement or any group of requirements may change, and we need to take action based on what is currently in place. It is similar to a lot of the Comprehensive Plan discussions that occurred around 100-foot creek setbacks. We are not authorized to require people to have 100-foot creek setbacks, as that has not yet been - approved. This is the same kind of situation. Certainly, regulations may change, but I need to recommend to Ken based on what is in place right now. Mr. Weed: One of the actions that is specifically contemplated by the municipal code applicable to this hearing is that the Director of Planning can make the dec.ision to defer the determination on the application to a hearing by the decision-making bodies -- the Planning Commission and the City Council, that is expressly contemplated if they determine that there are issues of significance realted to the preliminary parcel map. I think what we are saying here is that in view of the fact that there is an ongoing process regarding identification of historical standards, modifications of historical properties, it is anomalous to permit a major modification of an historical property at a time when the process is still ongoing by approving a parcel map, and-that the referral to the deicsion-makign body should be made. I~ seems to me that since the City Council has already spoken, saying we need more information before we can make a determination of what the rules on historical home renovations are going to be, to say that all we are doing is approving a parcel map and we are not approving a modification to a historical home is denying the plain reality of this. You have heard all of the testimony here today. The location of the lot line is going tO have major significance from the viewpoint of all of the opponents on the historical value of the property. As mentioned, the pamphlet of the Historic Resources Board indicates that the proportions of the grounds is a major attribute of it. So our contention is that as administrators, you should defer to what the elected officials have already identified as beirig an important process to go through, and not make a decision on~ your own that_basically tire ~umvents that process. Mr. Lewis: In part, I am reiterating what Mike just stated. There is a reality of a process t.hat is going on right now. To put blinders on that process because this is the status quo and we have to function under the existing rules requires us to go through the appellate process which will take four months. It is a lot of expense for both sides, pending some determinations that are going to have to be made. I know there are members of the City Council whom I have spo~-en to, and it is hearsay and is not relevant, but they feel that the decision on this should be deferred right now. They stay out of these decisions because of the nature of the political process in Palo Alto. It only gets to them on an appellate basis, but it seems wholly inappropriate to put blinders on to the process that is going on in Palo Alto to determine how these historic properties are used.. To say that we have to function under the existing rules,’ ignoring that Ci!y of Palo Alto Page 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25r 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 we have one of the more significant political issues going on in Palo Alto in recent years, does not seem appropriate. Ms. Grote: Again, definitely the Director has the ability to defer or to refer something to the Planning Commission and City Council. That is only done if there is an issue surrounding existing regulations, not an issue that may or may not develop in the future. You could as easily say that the permanent historic regulations would support something like this, as saying they would not support something like this. So it is all speculative. I don’t think the Director would refer something on to the Planning Commission and City Council based on speculation. He would refer it to the City Council if there were really an issue in front of him that he could not reconcile because of existing regulations~ not because of anticipated regulations. So I don’t think you will see a referral from him, but he will certainly consider it. Mr. Weed: That is not how I read the ordinance. It says, "If, in the opinion of the Director, there are issues of major significance associated with the proposed parcel map..." It does not say "related to potential future .regulations." Ms. Grote: I need to respond to that, as well, because it will go into my recommendation to the Director. The professional testimony I have received in the form of the Page & Turnbull report and in the form of oral testimonY is that there is not a negative impact or adverse impact on the historical nature of this site because of this lot split. I am hearing you say that you believe there is, but that is not a professional opinion. It may be heartfelt and believed, but it is not something that has come from research or from a professional background in this particular area. Mr, ¯ May I say something about that? I’ll tell you something about being professional. As vice president of my company, I can be very professional when I have enough time to do it. IfI had been brought into the act early last year when everyone else was making the plans and deciding what they were going to do with the property, I could end up today being extremely professional with outside people coming in, and I myself could have done some research. But I cannot do it when the first time I hear about it is at Chrismaas. It is a little bit smug to say that the people who are making the professional presentation have been working on it since last year, for God’s sake. I think the rest of us are simply responding as quickly as we could in a nice way, and the meetings have been very cordial. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the meetings. They have been very, very cordial, but in my estimation, it is very compelling to say, Look, we are about to make a decision on a major, decision:making process within the City of Palo Alto. Why not let a larger body of people, like the people of the City of Palo Alto, plus all of the people who are looking at these new regulations, decide what is going to happen. If it turned out to be against me, that would be free. I would support it, but I don’t think it is backing down on your part or things like that by acknowledging the fact that there is some motion going on here, and why not wait until the motion is there. I really take offense at the fact that you say that from the professional testimony as opposed to the unprofessional testimony. Bill Lewis: The other request I would make, Lisa, is that if, in fact, the feelings of the opponents who are all neighbors, about the historic nature of this property which we live by constantly and have, many City of Palo Alto Page 11.. 1 2 3 ~4 5 6 7 8 ~9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 of us, for ten to twenty years, does not measure up to that of professional testimony, I would ask that the hearing be deferred for a sufficient time for us to employ professionals. I am an attorney by profession. I don’t want to denigrate the testimony of those professionals who have been employed by Jon Schink and/or the Flookes here, but one thing I know from my experience, and which you may know as well from your experience in this forum, is that there are professionals who will testify for either side, given the opportunity. There is always adverse professional testimony. We have had about a month, much of which were the Christmas holidays. We got a notice shortly before the initial hearing. Mr. Schink agreed to defer that initial hearing, but there were hearings going on for months at the HRB level that we had no notice of. We had no knowledge of what was going on until very shortly before the initial scheduled heating.. So if that professional testimony is necessary, we will go out and seek the opinion of other professionals. All we have is the testimony of the professionals employed by the proponents. Ms. Grote: When was the first neighborhood meeting held? Mr. Northway: Approximately one week before the November 20 original heating I think was the firsf meeting, November 17th. Ms. Grote: And between November 17th and January 8th, you feel there was not enough time to seek -- Mr. ¯ I would say that based on what you said today, that you consider this testimony as not professional, and if this is some kind of a case where you bring two sides together with two groups of professionals, we certainly would have done that had we had the time. Mr. Weed: The answer is no, we have not had sufficien~ time to employ professionals dealing with the historic aspects o{this. Those studies take significant time, and this has been during the holiday season. It is a very difficult time to get anyone to do anything. People do.not act in two weeks. They generally act within a matter of months. I don’t know how long ago the hist0dc party was involved, but I believe he indicated that he had reviewed the property about a year ago, so there was some breathing room within which to Process that. During the time from our initial meeting, there were additional drawings. There were in, fact, drawings done which I am under the impression did not exist before. So there were things that were presented to us. It has been an ongoing process. We had a series of a couple of meetings with the proponents here which used up the time that we had, so we have not had an opportunity to get further professionals and would need ~,’ther time if that kind of testimony is necessary. Mr. ¯ I would like to’record the date of thesecond meeting, because as a matter of fact, that was the first time we actually saw anything.. Ms. Grote: I don’t know what the second meeting date was. Mr. Northway: December 18, 1997. City of Palo Alto Page 12 : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mr.: Right before Christmas. Mike Haber: I have a question for the professional in terms of the historic aspects of this. Did I hear you correctly in saying that there was no negative impact from an historic basis? That is what was really shocking to me. I think that is what you said. Mr. Tumbull: No, what I said was (and I was thinking of CEQA matters, because our office has to deal with those fairly frequently) anything that you do on a given property does have an effect. What I was trying to do was to express an opinion about the historic resource and to think in my mind whether the potential effect on the resource was at a significant level or a less than significant level. Because of the pattern which I believe has existed in Professorville for most of this century of gradual densifying and infilling, to me, this looked like a part of the pattern that was simply continuing. As a matter of fact, on this lot, we have seen that happen on the two structures that are now on Emerson. So the lot does not present itself as it would have in 1902. I think my feelings would be quite different if it did. Mr. Lewis: To reiterate what Bill said, I don’t think it would be difficult to f’md a professional to come in say, of course there is an impact, from an historic aspect, on subdividing this lot. It would undoubtedly not be difficult to find one to say that it was a very significant impact, respecting your opinion on it. It is a property, as Bill described, that was originally 200 feet long with the house right in the middle of it, and now it is going to be 100 feet long with a line ten feet off-- if you think of it from an economic basis, someone who really wants to come in and turn that into the house it was and the property it was, ignoring the fact that there were some subdivisions, I don’t know when, but I guess it wasabout 20 or 30 years ago, there still is a natural buffer area all around the house. To take this back to right off the back of the house, and that is where some of the other problems come in, too, because then where do you place the garage? If you are going to preserve this carriage house and put it back onto the property, you have to squeeze it into the back which is already pretty crowded. It just seems to me a slam dunk that this is a significant impact from a historic basis. And it may be apropos of nothing,. but what I wish could be is that the talents that are assembled in the room here could be used in upgrading the entire property, and not just to take a subdivide and make the best of it. You can’t try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but instead, really to take that whole property and improve it dramatically. I agree that the outbuildings are nothing special, but to say that the outbuildings are not of historic merit means that you ought to subdivide the property does not sound logical to me, and it does not sound like it is coming from the perspective of preserving historic resources. Bill Lewis: I want to clarify that the second meeting with the neighbors was held on December 18th, one week before Christmas. Sandy Sloane: Just a few further comments. We would not want the heating to be continued, since we have already continued it once at the applicant’s request. We did so because we really thought that putting a lot of expense into the design of the house, which normally is not considered at a subdivision stage, would ensure them of compatibility. You have heard from some of neighbors that they were very complimentary of the applicant’s team, but they felt that talking about the design would not make them happy. We wish it would, but that seems to be the message. City of Palo Alto Page 13.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .’ Also, in response to what is going on at the City Council, there is a method under the government code for the City Council to impose an interim ordinance or a moratorium if they want everything to be halted or if they want the rules to change while they are studying something. As you know, that was done ¯ awhile ago, and the decision has been made not to do that again but to operate under the existing rules while they continue to look at the big picture. Mr, Northway: To get the sequence straight on the meetings, we had the meeting in November with all of the neighbors at Bill Lewis’ house. At that point, the design team started on a design for the project. We met with Bill Lewis at my office approximately three weeks later, and then the December date that was mentioned when we met again with the full neighborhood group. Ms. Grote: I did not mean to offend anyone by saying that your testimony was not professional. I apologize for that. I merely meant that I have reports in iron of me specifically addressing issues that are of a specialized nature, and that those reports have been prepared by experts in the field. Mr.¯ That’s ok. I have thick skin. Ms. Grote: This particular report is inan area of expertise directly related to historic impacts. The information that I have in front of me now suggests that there is nothing that would be significant enough to deny the application. Based on the professional testimony I have received from two arbofists also indicates that there would be no basis to deny the application. Both lots would meet all dimensional size requirements, There is nothing that has been presented to me that would cause me to deny the application. I will close the public hearing and issue a formal, written determination within ten working days. There is an appeal process, which, if you avail yourselves of that, would give you ample time to prepare other types of reports. You would have the opportunity to present those reports to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Mr. ¯ Are you saying that you have already made your decision? Ms. Grote: I have not. I am saying that there is nothing here that, at this point, would cause me to deny the application. However, once I close the public hearing, I cannot take any further testimony or consider any further information. .Mr. ¯ I assumed that we came here today because we were going to be a part of the picture; that this hearing would be an opportunity for the neighbors to give input that would be significant. That is why I am here. Ms. Grote: Mr. ¯ been said. That’s fight. So I am assuming that when we leave here, you are going to consider everything that has Ms. Grote: That’s right. City of Palo Alto Page 14.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mr. : And it is not a foregone conclusion that your mind has been made-up.. Ms. Grote: That is correct. If there is no one else that wishes to speak, I will close the public hearing and issue a determination within ten working days. City of Palo Alto Page 15.. January 22, 1998 City of Palo Alto Department ofPlamzing and Ccmtmunity Envircnmw~zt Planning DM.sion Mr. Jon Schink 2141 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Schink: Re: Approval of Parcel Map 97-PM-003 at 221 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto This letter is to inform you that the above-referenced Parcel Map for property at 221 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, California has been approved. The approval allows the existing single parcel to be subdivided into two single-family parcels, as per plans received September 8, 1997, and on file in the office of the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. Parcel Map approval is based on the following findings and is subject to the conditions listed below. FINDINGS: The Parcel Map is in compliance With the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it results in two lots that’r~eet single-family residential densities and that preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood as called for in Policy 1, Program 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Parcel Map encourages the private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both as called for in Policy 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan in that dividing the existing property into t~vo lots will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure that will remain on the resulting’Parcel 2 and will provide a potential means of financing the rehabilitation of that landmark structure. The Historic Report prepared by Page and Turnbull, dated June 16, 1997, on file in the office of the Planning Division, documents the history of the site and the landmark structure on the site, "known commonly as the Fowler lvlansion, and verifies that dividing the parcel into two parcels that conform to standard R-1 (single-family residential) requirements will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure or on the overall site. The City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board reviewed the parcel map application and the Page and Tumbull Historic Report on October 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the minor subdivision based on the fact that there ~ Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box l~_.50 Palo Alto, CA 94.303 415.3,"9.2441 415.3Z9.~_240 F,~x ~vili be no adverse impacts to the historic site or landmark structure as a result of the subdivision. The Historic Resources Board recommended that specific conditions of project approval be attached to the parcel map regarding preservation and restoration of the existing "carriage house" and Historic Resource Board review of the new structure to be built on the resulting Parcel 1. The conditions of approval as recommended by the Historic Resources Board are attached to thisparcel map approval along with other pertinent conditions of approval. o The Parcel NIap is consistent with Title 18, Zoning, of the Palo alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in that both resulting parcels meet all minimum development standards, including lot size and dimensional requirements. CONDITIONS. o o ° The Final Map recorded for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the Parcel Map, received September 8, 1997, on file in the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. The existing Carriage House on parcel 1 shall be preserved and restored, either on parcel 1 or moved to parcel 2. If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and is moved to parcel 2, it shall be located on the southwestern portion of the site and sh.al.1 be accessed from Kingsley Avenue and shall be subject to review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the HRB and is retained on parcel 1 and a new garage is constructed on parcel 2,~l~e new garage shall be subject to review by the HRB. In either case, the HRB shall review the proposal for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. The house and any other structures to be built on parcel 1 shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. The HRB shall review the house and other structures for compliance with the Historic Compatibility Standards, or the applicable standards in place at the time of review. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a six foot’wide utility easement shall be dedicated on parcel 2 along the north and east property lines and on parcel 1 along the north property line. After recordation of the final map; the applicant shall send the Utilities Engineering Division of the Utilities Department a copy of the recorded final map showing the. location of the six foot wide utility easement. PM 350 25 shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for the final parcel o 10. 11. map. Monuments shall be set at lot comers. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for parcel 1, the applicant shall submit a preliminary soils report for the project or apply for a waiver of soils report for the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted imper~’ious surface area. A storm drainage fee adjustment shall take place in the month following construction by the Building Inspectio. n division. Prior to issuance of a.building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest (section 12.12.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide a construction logisticsplan addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo alto’s Trucks and Truck Route ordinance, Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal code, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo alto. Prior to issuance of a building permit f~l? construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for any construction proposed in the public’ ~:ight of way (Section 12.08.010 of the PAMC). 13.The applicant or his/her designee shall contact the City of Palo Alto Public Works inspector prior to any work performed in the public right of way as required by section 12.08.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). 14.No storage of construction materials shall be permitted in the street oron the sidewalk without prior approval of the Public Works Engineering Division. 15.¯The applicant shall require his/her contractor to incorporate best management practices for any construction on either of the two parcels with regard to storm water pollution prevention in all Construction operations, in conformance with Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution control Program. 16.The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans shall be completed’and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. City Planning Arborist " pRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP 17.To insure the indefinite retention of the large Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1, any development or property improvements, including demolition or grading, shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Palo.Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 18.Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: The applicant shall be required to select a certified project arborist to develop a tree protection and preservation plan that will recommend guidelines for the design, measures to pro!ect the tree from injury or permanent damage during demolition, grading or construction, arborist inspection schedule; and ongoing maintenance needs. The City A.rborist shall have discretion to make adjustments tO the specific requirements of the report if warranted based upon field conditions to insure that the health of the trees will be adequately protected. A Certified arbdrist shall be retained by the applicant as the Project Arborist.~ The Project Arborist shall be responsible for all on site activity ingolving the welfare of the trees to be retained, including, reports, appraisals, tree preservation plans, and inspections as required. A certified arborist shall be an individual who: possesses current international Society of Arboriculture certification; is a member of the American Society of C0n.sulting Arborists; or a member of the California Arborists Association. 19. 20. To enable effective tree protecti6h measures, a complete and accurate set of development plans shall be made available to the project arborist. Plans shall indicate proposed structures, accessory structures, foundations, planned hard scape and walkways. All utilities, both public and private, that require trenching or boring shall be shown on the plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the Coast Live Oak. This shall include publicly owned ¯ trees within the right-of-way. Property improvements Shal.l not be detrimental or injuriouS; to ’the Coast Live Oak. These improvements include but are not limited to building height, foundations, drainage, grading or trenching for utilities or landscape irrigation. A tree protection zone shall be established not less thantwenty-five (25’) feet from the ¯ trunk perimeter or as the project arborist determines, whichever is greater. 21. ao This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion. Final landscaping shall be installed while the protective fencing is in place. To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall show thz~t any hard scape surfaces within twenty-five feet of the trunk perimeter are of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in excess of four inches above existing grade. 22.Plans shall show" that no permanent irrigation is designed within twenty-five (25’) of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter. THE FOLLOWhVG INSTRUCTION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 23.The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance. 24.All trees to be retained, as sho~vn on the approved plan shall be protected during construction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to b~ retained: ao All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at leas.t 2.-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building pemiitl except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. lf the above will block the sidewalk or street right of way, the above fencing may enclose the entire planting strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. lf the trees are in a small tree well, the trees shah be wrapped with 2- inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the firs( branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. Each protective fence shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence sl~all not be removed or relocated without 25. written authorization from the City of Palo Alt.o Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subj’ect to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." If pruning or maintenance on the Coast Live Oak is recommended in the arborist report, it shall meet the following industry standards. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in " accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. Co All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Soci,ety of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 26. 27. Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jac "khammer or pick and hand load the jpieces onto ikiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must n&"be allowed to dry out at any time. The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28.All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of. any kind. 29. 30. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted-within the tree enclosure area. bo C° bo Co The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 31. 32. Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak:- Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remo.ye base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 33. 34. 35. All neighbors’ trees that overhang t_he project site shall be identifie.d and protected from impact of any kind. ,~ppropriate protective measuresshall be installed after consultation with the project and City Arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. ’The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The appropriate maintenance measures shall be determined by the project arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist. If you have anY questions regarding this approval, please call Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator, at (650) 329-2561 or George White, Senior Planner, at (650) 329-2541. There is a 10 day appeal period from the date this decision was made. An appeal of the decision or any of the attached conditions.must be made by FebruarY 2, 1998. The appeal must be in writing and should be submitted with the appeal fee to the Planning Division office located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, The appeal will be heard by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If an appeal is received, you will be notified of the dates and time~ of the public hearings to be held by the Commission and Council. If no appeal is received, you may prepare your final map to be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto prior to recordation with the County of Santa Clara. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment Mr. and Mrs. Jon Pfluke, 22 l_Kingsley’,2,venue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Margaret A. Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Piffle, CA 94025-3392 Mr. Michael H. Weed, Aufmuth, Fox, Weed &LeBlanc, Attorneys at Law, 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. William C. Lewis, 1116 Ramona Street, Palo Alto; CA 94301 TE & JL Corm, 257 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 DD Kennedy, 252 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Asher Waldfogel, 222 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ms. Suzanne Greenberg, 1147 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Theodore G. And Mrs. Adrian K. Erler, 1115 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. George White, Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto Aufmuth Fox Weed & LeBlanc A Professional Corporallon AttorneYS Via Hand Delivery January 30, 1998 Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Approval of Parcel Map 97-PM-003 at 221 IGngsly Avenue, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Schreiber: This letter is to advise you that my client, William C. Lewis, shall appeal the approval of the above referenced Parcel Map. Your approval of this Parcel Map was set forth in a letter dated January 22, 1998, addressed to Mr. Jon Schink. The required fee of $100.00 and the appeal form are enclosed with this letter.t, Please advise the undersigned of the schedule of hearings for the appeal when such information is available. The principal reasons for the appeal of the decision are: 1. Approval of the Parcel Map permits an irreversible, substantial negative effect upon an important historic property in the City of Palo Alto, at a time when the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of standards applicable to modification of historic homes. The deletion of virtually all of the rear yard .of the property by the subdivision constitutes a significant impact on the historic characteristics and value of the property; The appellant may introduce expert testimony to this effect to counter the report of the applicant’s consultant upon which the approval seems to have heavily relied. 2. The appellant desires to examine the validity and efficacy of the applicant’s arborist report, a copy of which was never provided to the appellant or other concerned neighbors, in order to fully understand the implications of planned construction upon the significant oak tree located on the proposed new parcel. 3. The appellant questions the authority of the Director of Planning and C~mmunity Environment to approve a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone (650) 322-7100 Facsimile (650) 322-6635 Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber January 30, 1998 Page 2 Quality Act, in light of the prohibition against delegation to staff of approval of a negative declaration by the decision making body set forth in Section 15025 of the CEQA Guidelines. The appellant also questions the validity of basing a Negative Declaration on reports by consultants hired directly by the applicant,as opposed to the City. Mr. Lewis anticipates that he will be joined by other concerned neighbors in expressing opposition to the approval of the Parcel Map at the public hearings. Very truly yours, AUFMUTH, FOX, WEED & LEBLANC By: H. Weed William C. Lewis Attachment G Draft Findings for Approval of Parcel Map 221 Kingsley Avenue 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26 The Parcel Map is in compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it results in two lots that meet single-family residential densities and that preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood as called for in Policy 1, Program 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Parcel Map encourages the private preservation of buildings which have historic or architectural merit or both as called for in Policy 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan in that dividing the existing property into two lots will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure that will remain on the resulting Parcel 2 and will provide a potential means of financing the rehabilitation of that landmark structure. The Historic Report prepared by Page and Turnbull, dated June 16, 1997, on file in the office of the Planning Division, documents the history of the site and the landmark structure on the site, known commonly as the Fowler Mansion, and verifies that dividing the parcel into two parcels that conform to standard R-1 (single-family residential) requirements will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure or on the overall site. The City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board reviewed the parcel map application and the Page and Turnbull Historic Report on October 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the minor subdivision based on the fact that there will be no adverse impacts to the historic site or landmark structure as a result of the subdivision. The Historic Resources Board recommended that specific Conditions of project approval be attached to the parcel map regarding the relocation and restoration of the existing "carriage house" and Historic Resource Board review of the new structure to be built on the resulting Parcel 1. The conditions of approval as recommended by the Historic Resources Board are attached to this parcel map approval along with other pertinent conditions of approval. ~ The Parcel Map is consistent with Title 18, Zoning, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in that both resulting parcels meet all minimum development standards, including lot size and dimensional requirements. - FOWLER MANSION 221 Ki,~gsley Avenue Professorville Historic District Palo Alto, California Page & Turnbull, Inc. Jaa, 24, 1997 ~"FOWLER MANSION¯ ’PALO ALTO THE FOWLER MANSION PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT, PALO ALTO Introduction The Fowler Mansion is a turn-of-the-century residence located in Palo Alto’s Professorville Historic District. The mzin house is a large, two story, sh~led structure with a dormered garnbre.l roof and strong horizontal lines. It is set deep into a lot on the comer of Rmnona Street and Kingsley Avenue. Also on the property are a ~ house of the same era that was converted into spaces, apparently intended for student occupancy, in approximately 1952, a chicken coop, a bike shed and a gara~. The current owners of the prope~ are interested in subdividing their lot and selling the portion on which the former ~ house currendy sits. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to clarify the current re_.lafionship between the former carriage house and the main residence and to explain the effects that a new lot subdivision might have on both the property and the surrounding ndghbothood. What follows is a sunm’mry of the site’s history and significance, an explanation of the alterations that have been made to the site and to the buildings on the site since initial construction, a proposal of ma appropriate property division and an ~ssessment of the effects that property division and new constrt~ction might have on the character of the immediate ¯ property and the surrounding historic district. I.Fowler Mansion History andSignificance According to a Historic Resources Inventory form that was prepared for.the Historic Resources Board of P~lo Alto, the Fowler Mansion was built in 1902 by Gustav Laumeister for Mrs. Joshua Fowler whose son, Frederick, attended Stanford University.(1) When Frederick married he lived in the house with his wife, Elsie, who was the daughter of the university’s second president, John Brarmer. Frederick became an engineer and during the 1940s was the president of both the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Society of Milir~xy Engineers. FOWLEK MANSION PALO ALTO In 1938, Karl and Anita Brandt bought the house from the Fowlers. Karl Brandt was an agricultural economist and Professor at Stanford’s Carnegie Food Research Institute. He and his wife.lived in the house until 1971, at which time they sold it to the propexty’s current owners, John and Sybille Pfluke. The Fowler Mansion was described in Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory as being "the anchor house of the Professorville district." Constructed at a cost of $9,000 it was among the most expensive residences built in the city of Palo Alto in 1902.(2) The January 2, 1902 edition of the Palo Alto Tmaes cites the building as being significantly more expensive than any other building built by Laumeister that year. The turn-of-the-century was a time when the area now known as Professorville was rapidly turning into an enclave for Stanford academidans. The distzict was owned by Tunothy Hopkins, the son of railroad magnate Mark Hopkins, who, at the request of Leland Stanford,sub~vided 700 acxes in 1889 for the development of faculty residences. The area is now listed as an Historic Dis~ct on th.e National Register of Historic Places. In the National Register Nomination Report the district is described as being "one of the earliest residential areas in Palo Alto, housing a large proportion of the first professors" at Stanford University. Many of the houses in Professorville axe large, shingled Colonial Revival or Craftsman structures built on generous lots. As one of the early large residences to be built in the area, the Fowler Mansion is significant in Professorville’s initial development. It was built at a time during which the architectural character of the neighborhood was in its infancy. From Frederick Fowler’s days as a Stanford student, to his mamiage to the daughter of Stanford’s second president, to the notable Professor Brandt, the house has, in the tradition of Professorville, been home to several major figures in the early history of the academic institution. Althoug~a several ~s have been made to other structures on the property through the yearn, the main residence has been left largely intact, has retained its historic character and prominent siting and continues to function as an example of the early large houses in the Professorville district. FO’gVL~R MANSION PALO ALTO II. Site Chronology Since the construction of the Fowler Mansion in 1902, its associated structures and surrounding property have gone through a series of changes. There was once a semi-circular drive in front of the house along Kingsley Avenue. Although a curbcut from this drive still exists, the driveway has been relocated to the rear of the house and is now accessed from Ramona Street. It appears as though the carriage house was remodeled and converted into spaces for student occupancy in 1952. Rather than .being remodeled in the spirit of the main residence, a rectangular addition was placed on the carriage house which was clad in horizontal wood siding. With these changes the character of the carriage house was significandy altered. It is cui-rendy divided into three spaces, two of which are approximately 300 square feet and one of which is approximately 700 square feet. One of the spaces is currendy occupied. Based on similarities in construction and architectural character, the carriage house alterations and addidon were apparendy made at the same time the garage in the rear of the house was constructed. The County Assessor’s valuation card lists the construction of the garage as 1952. Neither the’ carriage house alterations nor the garage construction was carried out in keeping with the original character of the main residence. The alterations that were made to the carriage house stripped it of its historic architectural integrity and severed its stylistic relationship to the main residence. The Fowler Mansion is located on a piece of land that was once significantly larger daan it is today. To the southwest of the house there was once a piece of land set aside for use as an orchard. Although the orchard was considered to be a separate lot, it was held under the, ownership of the.Fowlers and then the Brandts. When the Pflukes bought the property in 1971, they immediately sold the orchard plot; in 1975 they sold another narrow strip of land so that the newly created plots would be deep enough to build upon.(3) FO~X/L, EK MANSION PALO ALTO III.Proposed Property Division and New Structures The current owners of the Fowler Mansion are interested in subdividing their lot to create a site for a new residence to the northwest which would be accessible from Ramona Street. The new lot would be of an appropriate size to accommodate a new dwelling and would conform to the Palo Alto Munidpal Code, which requires new residential lot dimensions to be at least 60 feet by 100 feet. The portion of the lot to be sold is currendy Occupied by the carriage house; it is likely, therefore, that the former carriage house would eventually be altered or replaced by a new residential structure. The new property line would bisect the existing garage. The garage would therefore be removed, in-whole or in-part, and a new garage would be built, respective of the new property division and street character. A new garage could be built in a similar location to the existing garage near the back of the property. It would continue to be accessed from Ramona Street and would not be visible from the Ramona-Kingsley intersection. Two other alternatives exist for the placement of the new garage: it could either be located along the southwestern side of the property and be accessed from a. new entrance along Kingsley, or it could be placed along Ramona near the location of the existing bike shed. Reducing the size of the garage and rebuilding it in its current location, or reusing a part of the existing garage smacture, however, would be among the least visible, least intrusive alternatives. Effects of Property Division and New Construction on Propez~y and District In the history of development in Professorville, it has not been uncommon for large residential lots to be subdivided into s~vetal smallcr properties. To the northwest and southeast of the Fowler Mansion on Ramona Street, this pattern of lot subdivision is evident. Although subdivided lots comprise a significant part of the Professorville Historic District, many expansive lots containing single large residences also still exist. While the creation of a new property division along the northwestern side of the Fowler property would be consistent-with the overall devdopment and character of the Page 4 Page ~" Ttwubul~ lr~. FO~’LEK MANSION PALO ALTO neighborhood, the unchanged southeastern side of the lot would continue to rdate strongly to the more expansive lots along Kingsley Avenue. The carriage house is not a "Historic Landmark Residence" as defined in chapter 16.50.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended. Subparagraph (e) of this chapter states that a "Historic Landmark Residence" is any residential Significant Building and any Protected Residence that is determined to meet the standards for historic designation outlined in the c. hapter. Although any residential building located in a historic district is considered, under this code, to be a "Sigrfificant Building," the carriage house was not originally designed as a residence, and has been altered sigrfificantly since its initial construction in 1902. A "Protected Residence" is defined in subparagraph (k) of the code as being a residential structure that was originally constructed before 1940, while subparagraph (1) defines a ’"Residential Structure" as being a structure that is currently or was most recently used for residential purposes, and which was originally constructed for residential use. The cazriage house is shown m be unoccupied on early Sanborn Map~, and the best evidence as to when it was remodeled comes from John Pfluke and the County Assessor’s-v-aluation card, which fix the construction of the garage at 1952. Because the can:iage house was not oriooinall~ designed to be a residence and because it was apparently turned into a residence a39er 1940, it does not fall under the current moratorium against alteration or removal of historic residences in the Professorville district. .With the creation of a ne~ property division, the site for a new residence would be created in or near the current location of the former carriage house. Because the carriage house has been significantly altered and lacks historic -integrity, it does not contribute to and may detract from the historic and architectm~ significance of the main residence. However, the applicant might want to consider rehabilitating the ~xiage house and using it as an accessory structure on the new lot. A new residential structure along Ramona would serve to reinforce the pattern of smaller homes on smaller lots that began to characterize the street as early as 1904. Along Y-dngsley Avenue the Fowler Mansion is set approximately 72’ into the lot, creating a generous yard in front of the house’s main fa~de. From the FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO intersection of Kingsley and Ramona the house would continue to be seen as a large residence set into an expansive lot. The proposed lot subdivision would not alter the prominent view of the house and would therefore not adversely affect the integrity of the historic Fowler Mansion or the character of the district in which it is located. , If a mitigation effort is deemed necessary, it may be possible to reduce the height of the perimeter shrubbery, allowing the house to be more visible from the Ramona-Kingsley intersection. Additionally, if documentation of the original semi-circular drive and front garden is found, it may be possible to reassert the original character of the front yard and the intended relationship of the house to the street. FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO End Notes 1.Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory,: 1978 and 1983, p.2. 2.Pa/o A/to Times. January 2, 1903, p 1. 3.John Pfluke, Interview, June 10, 1997. SOUrCeS Palo Alto Building Permit Records Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory (1978, 1983) Sanborn Maps (1904, 1908, 1924, 1962) PaloA/to Times. January 2, 1903, p 1. Wing, Kafissa. ’-’:Professorville," Palo A/to Times. October 20, 1992, p 8. Page.7 FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO Pi~oto~ra~/~ ~. Photograph of the Fowler Mansion taken shortly after its consu-uction in 1902. This photograph exposes the traces of a circular drive in the front yard. The image was used on the cover of house tour brochure promoting the sign/fir.ant homes of" the Professorville Histozic Distzict. SOurce of photograph unknown. FOWI.ER MANSION PALO ALTO Pho,tograp~ 2. View of Fowler Mansion from the intersection of Ramona Street and [Gngsley Avenue. To the left of the photograph is the large front yard or" the Fowler Mansion. From this perspective it can be seen that the residence is set deep into the lot. To the right, down Ramona Street, houses have been built closer to the street and closer together. FOWLER MANSION ¯ "PALO ALTO Pbotbgrap/3 3. View alone I~.::~.. ,n., Street looldng towards Fowler Mansion from the intersection of Ramona Street and Lincoln Avenue 1,~. tius area, lots found on Ramona Street are often smaller than lots found on IZingsley Avenue. Smaller h~m~es have been built on these lots and they:have been built closer to the street, creatm a density that is not t’ound in some of the larger properties in Professorville. Page FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO Photograph 4. Front of Fowler Mansion. The brown shingles are characteristic of rriany re.~;idences in the Professorvitie district. This photograph was taken from within the yard. Tall shrubs define the perimeter of the lot and screen the view of the hou,~e from the street. Page I I Page ~5" Turnbull, Inc. FOWLER I~[ANSION PALO ALTO Photograph 5. Altered carriage house with garage to the left. This photograph shows the addition that was apparently made to the carriage house in 1952 as well as the garage that was built adjacent to it. Siding on the garage and the carriage house is identical. Page 12 Page (.~ TurJzbull, FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO Sanborn Map ogr 190~. This map reveals that the pattern of small, regul~ lots along Ramona Street Was established as ea~!y as 1904. Note that the can:iage house was not indicated as a dxvelling ("D"). Pa~e 13 Pagt ~" T#rubull, FOWLER MANSION PALO ALTO Sanborn Map of 1924. By t924, the block of Ramona Street be’tween Lincoin and Kingsley was full of lots and houses that are small in comparison to the large lot onwhich the Fowler Mansion is located. Along Kingsley Avenue residential lots are larger than those along .Ramona Street but they are still more densely developed than the Fowler property. Page 14 Page O" Ttwnbull, FOWLIKR MANSION PALO ALTO RAMONA STREET NOTE: o’~;o"1oo’ Contemporary Vid~iO Map. This map shows that the Fowler lot was subdivided and residences were built along Emerson Street to the southwest of the property. The dashed line and hatched area define the minimal lot size allowed for a new residential lot in Palo Ako. The new lot defined by the hatched area is consistent with or lazger than the size and pattern of lots along Ramona Street. Pag~ 15 Page ~v" Turubul~, I~ PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum Date:October 18,~ 1997 George White, Senior Planner CC:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Debra Cauble, City Attorney From:Dave Dockter - Planning Arborist Subject:221 Kingsley Avenue 97-EIA-26; 97-HRB-222 & 97-SUB-1 s\plan\plandiv\arborist~resi- 1 ~221 king.wpd ASSIGNMENT I have reviewed the application and Tentative Map dated 8/29/97 and offer the following comments and conditions: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes a lot split/subdivision and parcel map. SITE CONDITIONS Parcel 2 Parcel 2 occupies the comer of Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue, and retains the main house that is of Historic status. There are eight street trees in the publicly owned fight-of-way. While there are many other mature trees on this parcel, there are no Oaks that are of protected tree status. Parcel 1 There are three street trees in the publicly owned right-of way on Parcel 1. There are a variety of other trees that are less than significant to this Parcel. There is one significant Coast Live Oak near the west property line and centered between the north and the (new) lot line separating the properties. This tree is of ’Protected Tree’ status as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020). As outlined in PMAC (Chapter 8.10.020 (I)(2), any building or property enhancement activities shall not impose any action that may forseeably lead to the death or permanent damage of tree health. This tree has been determined to be a significant biological resource to Parcel 1, the neighboring properties and the City of Palo Alto. Factfrs that contribute to this status include, but not limited PLANNING DIVISION Date: To: October 18: 1997, George White, Senior Planner CC:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Debra Cauble, City Attorney From:Dave Dockter - Planning Arborist Subject:221 Kingsley Avenue 97-EIA-26; 97-HRB-222 & 97-SUB-1 s\plan\plandiv\arboristkresi-1L221 king.wpd ASSIGNMENT I have reviewed the application and Tentative Map dated 8/29/97 and offer the following comments and conditions: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes a lot split/subdivision and parcel map. SITE CONDITIONS Parcel 2 Parcel 2 occupies the comer of Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue, and retains the main house that is of Historic status. There are eight street trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. While there are many other mature trees on this parcel, there are no Oaks that are of protected tree status. Parcel 1 There are three street trees in the publicly owned right-of way on Parcel 1. There are a variety of ¯ other trees that are less than significant to this Parcel. There is one significant Coast Live Oak near the west property line and centered between the north and the (new) lot line separating the properties. This tree is of ’Protected Tree’ stares as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10 (Chapter 8.10.020). As outlined in PMAC (Chapter 8.10.020 (I)(2), any building or property enhancement activities shall not impose any action that may forseeably lead to the death or permanent damage of tree health. This tree has been determined to be a significant bi01ogieal resource to Parcel 1, the neighboring. properties and the City of Palo Alto. Factors that contribute to this status include, but not limited Page 2 " PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum ............................................................................................ ~.~....~ ........... ..........- .......................... to the tree possessing the following qualities: The Tree Has Immense Size and Crown Spread Di~mensions This tree has a diameter at breast height of 64.5 inches (1,7 feet, 4 inches in circumference), a height of nearly 70 feet, and a crown spread of 84 feet. The tree will span over three property lines. The tree has an inherent immense presence from both near and afar. One can see its spreading evergreen canopy as far away as El Camino Real, a distance of over one mile away. No Historical" Value - This tree is one of the oldest in Palo Alto The tree age is estimated to be more than two centuries old, as evidenced by early.photographs taken at the turn of the century, and shows the tree as massive, mature and healthy landmark for the community that frequented the area beneath its canopy. Property Value Enhancement The tree functions as a significant contribution to the real estate value of the property. The 1997 Appraised Value* of this tree is $86,700.00 at current calculation rates. Key components of the formula reflect a high value based on (1) the tree species; (2) condition of the tree; and (3) its location, both on the lot and in relation to the quality and type of surrounding neighborhood. bo The Appraised Value of this tree shall be used for a replacement value, in the event development damaged the tree; or may have died due to a sudden catastrophic event, negligence or any other specific cause or; perhaps utilized to decide the percentage of monetary value that the tree contributes to the real estate value of the property. The Appraised Value is based on the current Guide to Plant Appraisal, 8th Edition, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture. Page 3 ¯ PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum Health, Structure and Maintenance a)The tree is in good health, has adapted well to changing conditions over the last century and, has received maintenance pruning, cabling and bracing. All health signs suggest that a long life should be expected. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ON PARCEL 1 The Coast Live Oak has adapted to changing conditions and continues to be thriving. Any new ¯ development however, may bring demise of this historic natural resource. Future development of the property will be inherently contrary to tree welfare, and every opportunity .to reduce impacts to the tree must be explored to insure the Coast Live Oak survives in good health over the long term. To accomplish this, it must be assured that a project arborist is retained by the applicant to develop specific tree protection and preservation plans for the Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1. To insure that the approved preservation measures will be carried out on site, it is necessary that the below conditions be recorded as such of the .Parcel Map. Because the Coast Live Oak is such a significant component to the Parcel split and land value of Parcel 1,Staff recommends that 25% of the appraised value be retained (see Condition #4) as a performance guarantee. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP Parcel 2 Parcel Parcel 2 shall be required to retain eight street trees in the publicly owned right-of-way; three trees on Ramona Street and five trees on Kingsley Avenue. Parcel. 1 shall be required to retain three street trees in the publicly owned right-of-way along Ramona Street. To insure the indefinite retention of the large Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1, any development or property improvements, including demolition or grading, shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 and; A Performance Guarantee of 25% of the total replacement value* ($21,675.00) of the Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1 shall be paid to the City, and shall be deposited in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office prior to recording of the Parcel Map. This guarantee shall include Page 4 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum ~ ~:~::’: ~~!’?!:!:~!:’:.:’:’::’.’:::’.! ~..*.?.!.?.:’:!.~:~: ~~?. the Applicant’s agreement to the below conditions and to: No Replacement. Replace the Coast Live Oak tree if it dies during the guarantee period with a tree of the same species as close in size as is reasonably possible within such time and manner as is determined by the Director. If the tree is too large or cannot be reasonably replaced, the replacement value* shall apply. If the tree is replaced with a smaller tree, the remaining balance of the replacement value shall still be due. A guarantee period shall be established by the Director or his designee. 1. The recommended guarantee period for this tree shall be ten years. Civil Penalt3,. Upon determination by the Director that the Coast Live Oak has died through the fault of the applicant and the Director determines it can not be replaced, the Director shall levy a civil penalty in the amount of the cost of the replacement tree. The applicant’s verified receipt shall be conclusive proof of that cost, plus installation. The Director shall be responsible for this determination in writing and mail it to the applicant. Co Eo Use of Penalties. The penalties collected pursuant to this shall be used, in the following order of preference and at the direction of the Director: (a) to provide additional tree(s) on the applicant’s property; (b) to upgrade street trees on peripheral streets; (c) to beautify public places in the area of the applicant’s property.; or (d) to provide landscaping on City property. Retention of Security. Retention of security of the applicant’s deposit is for the purpose of securing the applicant’s obligations of the above. Any funds remaining on deposit at the expiration of the guarantee period, after the applicant’s obligation has been satisfied, shall be returned to the applic .ant. Filing and Inspection. All security deposits and penalties shall be filed, in the City Finance Department with copies of receipts sent the Director’s office. Final inspections shall be made by the either the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the City Planning Arborist, or both. The applicant shall be notified within ten days of the results of the inspection. Replacement Value* of the trees shall be determined by the following methods: 1. For trees less than 4-inches in diameter, when measured at 12-inches above Page PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum natural grade, the trees shall be replaced with like size and kind. For trees larger than 4-inches in diameteror that cannot be replaced, the trees shall be appraised using the most recent edition of the "Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants", ptiblished by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT o Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: A project arborist ~hall develop a tree protection and preservation plan that will recommend guidelines for the structure design; measures to protect the tree from injury or permanent damage during demolition, grading or Construction; arborist inspection schedule; and ongoing maintenance needs. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to make adjustments to the specific requirements of the report if warranted by field conditions and if it can be demonstrated that the health of the trees is will be adequately protected. A Project Arborist is: A certified arborist shall.be retained by the applicant as the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist shall be responsiblefor all on site activity involving the welfare of the trees to be retained: including, reports, appraisals, tree preservation plans, or inspections as required. A certified arborist shall be an individual who: possesses current International Society of Arboriculture certification; is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists; or a member of the California A.rborists Association. The project arborist shall be involved .with the site development plans at the earliest stage. A complete and accurate set of development plans shall be made available to the project arborist. Plans shall show proposed structures and accessory structures, planned hardscape and walkways. AI! utilities, both public and private, requiring trench!ng or boring shall be shown on the plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and the Coast Live Oak. This shall also include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way. Plans of the property improvements shall ~how that they will not be detrimental or injure the Coast Live Oak from building height, foundation, drainage, grade or trenching for utilities or landscape irrigation. 7.A tree protection zone shall be established not less than thirty (30’) feet from the trunk Page 6 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum perimeter or as the project arborist determines, whichever is greater. This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion, and final landscaping is allowed. To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall show that any hards~ape surfaces within thirty feet of the trunk perimeter will be of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in excess of four inches above existing grade. Plans shall show that no permanent irrigation is designed within thirty (30’) of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter. THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 10. 11. The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless.otherwise approved. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plan shall be protected during construction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in-demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other pe .rmit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to beprotected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505 -This detail shall appear on grading and ~onstruction plans). If the above will block the sidewalk or street right of way, the above fencing may enclose the entire planting strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the ¯ sidewalk. Page 7 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum ........................... . .,....,....,~...~.,~ .........~:~... ............ ............................. ...........~ ...,...?.?~ .............~.... .................~ ..........~.’.~..,...~. ~.~ 12. If the trees are in a small tree well, the trees shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick-- - wooden slats bound securely .with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark, While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. Each protective fence shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." If pruning or maintenance on the Coast Live Oak is recommended by the project arborist report, it shall meet the following industry standards. ao All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. Co All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 13. 14. Pavement mad Hardscapc Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the fdllowing precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on. undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented ,by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum ~-’.’:~ ~:?::~ ? ~: ~.~:~::: 2.::~:::?.::~ ~::.Y..’~: ~:’::’.’?~:~. ~’.~:’, ~ . shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 15.All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 16.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 17.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a..No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b.The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. OWNER INFORMATION Addro~ Ciiy Siale .Zip 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SPECIES ! Explanalien of Sketch Res. Phone (Fax ( ) hifornllilion tmlei’~.’d on this foml tlliiy be tldmis;ible as evidence. (,ltased on Guide m PhmtAl~prai.~ul. I’lih Edilion) © Copyright 1995 by lhe Cotincil of Tree ltlld Landscape Appraisers and lhe hllemtliional Sexziel), of Arboficuhure. All Rights Reserved, GUIDE FOR JUDGI, .. THE CONDITION LANDSCAPE TREES (Refer ~o Chapter 6 of the G.ide~." Plum Approi.~a/) Note: A sepan~tc hazard tre¢ cvalumion may [~ required ~or trees in ~or condition. SCORING SYSTEM No problem: ............................................... No npparcnt problcrn(s) .................................... Minor problem(s) .......................................... Major probtcrn(s) .......................................... Exircrnc problem(s) ..................................... TREE NUMBER ROOTS Ro’,.H :lnchl)ragc S ............................................................... Col}l}ned rehlli\’¢ io lop S ....................................................... C’OI I;Ir .%Otllldll~’.~s S.II ........................................................... Mcchanienl i~tiury S.H .......................................................... Girdlin# & kinked toms S.H ..................................................... Compaclion or \Valcr-logBcd fools H ............................................. Toxic ~:lSCS &: chemical symploms H ............................................ Pre.,,¢nce or in,~.:.¢l.~ ~r disea:,;cs I I ................................................. TRUNK Sound h;irk & \vo~d. no c:l\’ilies S.t4 ............................................. Uprighl Irullk (well l:|pered) S, ’ Mechanic:d or lirc i~tiury S.H .................................................... Cr:leks--frosl. tic. S.II. ; ........................................................ S\\’ollcn or SUl&Cn arc;Is S.H ..................................................... Presence iff inset’Is or (lisca~e H .................................................. SCAFFOLD BRANCHES Slrong allachmcl~l.~ S ............................................................ Small diamclcr dum Irunk ................................................... V~rtical branch dislribulion .................................................. Free or included bark ........................................................ Fr~e or decay and ca\’ides S.H ................................................... Well-pruned. m) severe heading back S.H ........................................ Well-proponiol~cd~mpcrecl, hucrals along bral~ches S ............................ Wound closure H ............................................. . .................. Amount ordcad wood or fire injuo’ S.H ......................................... Presence or decay, insccls or diseases H .......................................... SMALLER BRANCHES & TWIGS Vi~or or currm~ shoots, compared to Ihal of 3-.5 previous \’cars H ............... \V~ll-dis~ribu~cd du’ough canopy H ...................... " ......................... Nomml appearance of buds---color, shape & size for species ...................... Presence or weak or dead lwigs H ................................................ Presence or inscc[s or diseases H ................................................. FOLIAGE/~ND/OR BUDS Nonn.’fl up~anlncc~sizc & color H ............................................. Nu~ricm deficiencies H .......................................................... Herbicide, chemical or pollul:~rll injury symptoms FI .............................. Wihcd or dead Ic.’lves H ......................................................... Presence t)f insccl or diseases H .................................................. POINTS , POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS LOCATION CHART SITE / CONTRIBUTION / PLACEMENT FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING LOCATION VALUES (Refer to Chapter 7 of tflc GtiideJbr Phm! Al~l)raL~’al) LOCATION SITE CONTRIBUTION PLACEMENT Site% C~fitribution % Placement % Total Location Avg. % The Localiun raling considerx the Site of a property, the plant’s functional and aesthetic Contributitm’m~d ~l~e Ph’tcernent ~l" the l’~l;.t~l irl II’lc landsc;q’~c. The ratin2_ of it Site is determined primarily by: ¯ The quality of development, the gcner:d ~tppcaranec ;arid the inten.sity or u,,e of the area in which lh¢ Site ix situated. ¯The tlesign and quality of structures and l;tndscapes in the area: m~d the I:mdse:q)e de.sign :mdquality of the phmting and maintenance of the Site. ¯The type of area (residcnti~.d. mall. ctc.) ix not I’mrticulm’ly helpful in r:tting ~. Site. The functional and aesthetic Contribtdi{m of a plant inllucnces its value, in a hmdscape. Tree characteristics largely determine Cordt’ibulion and w.duc. ’I’ABI.E 7.1, Functional ;rod Aexthctic C’ontribution Factors Suggested I.~aling Range 10-100% (Fotmd in Chorister 7 ty’lhe GltideJ?n" Phmt ApIn ~tisML Functional Attributes’Aesthetic Altributes Em’irmmtental & Engineering Sun. rt~diation & reflection control Wind control Drit’ting snow Lighl ~md glare shield Privacy Erosion control DI~I and dust t~bsorption Traffic control A ir pu ri ficalion Translqratior~ cooling Atz’hitectm’al and Phmt Characteristics Attractive bark, I]owcrs, Ibli:t~c. fruit, I~agrance Accents structures Screens undesirable views Fl’[lllles view Defines sp~cc Created vistas Attracts wildlife Other Cmtsideratimts Hisl,nri¢. rare or tmu.’cu:fl Sl:,ccirrtcn Ur~usual site silu:~tit’.,r~ ’Listed in .,,ugges~ed order or irnpommcc. Altribute, grouped Iog¢lher are .sirrfil:~r in iml,,t~nar~cc. The position of a tree in relation to how effectively it provides its fur~ction:d and aesthetic attributes determines the Pl:~cert]ent ralin,g of the tree. A sin,die specimen tree Ims greater value lit:Ill \votdd lhe sarrle tree as one of,n:tny. Th~ placement of a tree can also have un unfavorable as well as a,favorablc effect 0n its contribution, such as proximity to overhead \vires, street lights, and buildings. 1 4 TREE NUMBER 5 6 10 EXAMPLE Average the Site, Contril)ulior~ and Phtccment ratings to determine the average location %. For example, the ratings for a tree screening a local lar~dl’ill (dtu.a’q~) would be represented the I’ollowing way: ¯Site Quality (low), appearance’(Iow), use (low) ................................"Site rating 20~ ¯ Contribulior~Screens undesirable views (moderate) ...........................Contribution ra.ting 70~ ¯Placement Tree pl:mted on dttmp property line (high)." Dust reduction for neighbors (high) ................................Placement ratit’v,Z (AVERAGE LOCATION PERCENT = 20% + 70% + 90% = 180 + 3 = 60%) © Copyright 1995 by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the li~temational Society of Arboriculturc. All Rights Reserved. TREE APPRAISAL FIELD NOTES INFORMATION FOR FtEPLACEMENT COST AND/ORTRUNK FORMULA METHOD Appraised Value = Basic Value X Condition X Location E, asic Value = Replacement Cost + (Basic Price X [’FAA- TAR]) For a repl~t~ement-size tree use Replacement Cost (1) adjusted by Condition (7) and Location (S) to obtain its Appraise~l Vnlue For Trunk Formula Method use information from columns (1), (2). (3c), (5), (7), and (8) to obtain tl~e Appraised Vnlue (9). Number in ( ) refers 1o ilems in ’J~’m~l~ Formuh~ gqelhod l,’orm on Page 63 of ~l~e OHidefi~r Plant Ap/~raisal. 8th cal., 1992. Tree # 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 Trunk Replace’-Basic Pricel Dia./Cir.ment Cost $/Area in. / cm.(1)(2) ?7- Trunk Area Difference Species % Condition Location Appraised %%Value (3c)(7)(a)(9) AddRional Notes CERTIFICATION TOTAL I ccrlify that all the statements of fact in this Field Report Guidearc true, complclc and con’cct to {he best of my knowledge and belief, m~d are madc in good faith. Signature or Appraiser C’I’I.A’s Sl}On.~ox’ing Organizations ^merican Association or Nurserymen ¯125(1 I’Slree.L N.W. ¯ Suite 500 ¯ Washington, DC 20005. ¯ (2f,~2,’ 789-2900 ^merican Society or Consuhing Arborists ¯ 513(1 West 101st Circle ¯ W~stmin.ster, CO 80030-2314 ¯ (303)466-2722 Associated l.;mdscapc Comraclors of America ¯ 122()0 Sunrise Valley I)rive ¯ Suite 150 ¯ Reslon, VA 22091 ¯ (.703) 620-6363 Internatiol.m] Society of’Arboricultute ; RO. Box GG ¯ Savo),, ]L 61,’°,7,1 - (217) 355-9411 National Arborist Association o P.O. Box 1094 o Amherst, NH 03(131 ¯ (6Q3).673-3311 A l’mblication of tile Inter|lation:tl St),,zicty of Arbo~ icuhurc. O Copyright 1995 by tim Council or Tree :rod 1.undscapc Appraisers and the International Society of Arboricuhurc. All.Right.,, Reserved. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: 4.Project Location: 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 6.General Plan Designation: 7.Zoning: 8.Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting 221 Kingsley Avenue City Of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 George White, Senior Planner (41 5)329-2541 221 Kingsley Avenue ~ Palo Alto, CA Jon Schink 2141 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Single Family Residential R-1 subdivision approvalfrom the Zoning Administrator to divide a 27,971 square foot parcel into two lots of 9,056 and 18,915 square feet, respectively. The existing single family home on the property, locally known as the "Fowler Mansion" has been designated as a historical landmark structure and is located in the "Professorville" neighborhood, a National Register Historic District. 97-EIA-26 221 kingsley.mnd Page 1 D 10. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The property is bordered by s!ngle family uses on all sides. The site is currently developed with a large, single family home, a detached garage and a secondary dwelling unit in the former carriage house building. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financi.ng approv.al, or participation agreement). None. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy arid Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems X Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant,effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,.if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless .Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I final that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Project Pla~nner Director of Planning & Community Environment X Date Date 221kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 . Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document.should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 97-EIA-26 221 kingsley.rand page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant ..act Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1,6 X b) Conflict with applicable’environmental plans or policies 1 X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?2 X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact 2 X to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 2 X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 2 X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable 2 X housing? 3. GEOLOGY. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?1 X b) Seismic ground Shaking?’ "1 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?1 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?1 X e) Landslides or mudflows?1 X 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potential|y Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land?1 X h) Expansive soils?1 X I) Unique geologic or physical features?1 X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 2 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water rela’ted hazards 2 X such as flooding? c)2 X d) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including b0t not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and ’ debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ,body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f) g) h) Change in the quantity of ground Waters, either, - through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? 2 2 2 2 2 X X X 22 lkingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Alteration of wetlands in any way? AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 2 exiting or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2 Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 2 any change in climate? Create objectionable odors?2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: j) 5. a)’ X bl X c)X 6. a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?3 X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 3 X (e.g. farm equipment))? - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 3 X uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?3 X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?3 X f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 1 X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks}? ..... g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?2 . X 7. a) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: Endangered, threatened or rare.species or their habitats I_ 1 (including but not limited to )lants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?¯ 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act ,Impact b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?2 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 2 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?2 . X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?2 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?1 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 2 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 2 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 2 X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan 2 X or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health 2 X I hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 2 X I health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,2 X I grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?12 [1 I.~ 97-EIA-26 221 kingsley.mnd Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources ,~outoes Potenti, alty Significant Issues Potentielt¥ Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Then Significant Impact 1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?4 b) Police protection?5 c) Schools?2 d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional Water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 lkingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia|iy Significant issues Potentia|ly Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lass Than Significant Impact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 1 1 1,2 1 X 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks" or other recreational facilities? 2 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? _ _ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a .fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X x I 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X 17.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one’ or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR-or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed .in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. .Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082..1, 21083, 2108~.3, 21093, 321094, 21151;. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995 2 Planer’s general knowledge of the project and project site 221 kingsley.mnd 97-ElA-26 Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 3 Palo Alto Transportation Division 4 Palo Alto Fire Department 5 Palo Alto Police Departmentr 6 Palo Alto Municiple Code, Title 18 7 Palo Alto Utilities Department 8 Palo Alto Public Works Department , 9 City Arborist 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 221 kingsley,mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 12 7b.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The site contains one large Coast Live Oak tree that would be located on the newly created lot and be subject to potential impacts from future development on this lot. The City Arborist has reviewed the site, the subdivision proposal and thelarge specimen oak tree and has recommended the following mitigating conditions of project approval that will bring the potential impacts to this tree to a less than significant level The City Arborist’s evaluation dated 10/18/97 is incorporated by reference. Mitiaation Measures: PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE PARCEL MAP 1.To insure the indefinite retention of the large Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1, ~ny development or property improvements, including demolition or grading, shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: The applicant shall be required tO s~lect a certified project arborist to develop a tree protection and preservation plan that will recommend guidelines for the design, measures to protect the tree from injury or permanent damage during demolition, grading or construction, arborist inspection schedule; and ongoing maintenance needs. The City Arborist shall have discretion to make adjustments to the specific requirements of the report if warranted based upon field conditions to insure that the health of the trees will be adequately protected. ao A certified arl~orist shall b6 retained by the applicant as the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist shall be responsible for all on site activity involving the welfare .of the trees to be retained, including, reports, appraisals, tree preservation plans, and inspections as required. A certified arborist shall be an individual who: possesses current International Society of Arboriculture certification; is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists; or a member of the California Arborists Association. bo To enable effective tree protection measures, a complete and accurate set of development plans shall be made available to the project arborist. Plans shall indicate proposed structures, accessory structures, foundations, planned hardscape and walkways. All utilities, both public and private, that require trenching or boring shall be shown on the plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between .the utilities and the Coast Live Oak. This shall include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way. 3.Property improvements shall not be detrimental or injurious to the Coast Live Oak. These improvements include but are not limited to building height, foundations, drainage, grading or trenching for utilities or landscape irrigation. 221kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 13 4.A tree protection zone shall be established not less than twenty-five (25’) feet from the trunk perimeter or as the project arborist determines, whichever is greater. a.This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion.. Final landscaping shall be installed while the protective fencing is in place. 5.To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall sh~w that any hardscape surfaces within twenty-five feet of the trunk perimeter are of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in.excess of four inches above existing grade. 6.Plans shall show that no permanent irrigation is designed within twenty-five (25’) of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter. THE FOLLOWING INSTRUC’TION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 7.The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance. o All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plan shall be protected during construction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these, requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained:. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter garvanized iron posts; driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than lO-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically requ!red in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. *If the above will block the sidewalk or street right of way, the above fencing may enclose the entire planting Strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. If the trees are in a smart tree well, the trees shaft be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. b.Each protective fence shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tr~e protection fence, The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110~" 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 14 a.All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. b.All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. c.All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 10.Pavement and Hardscape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. 11.The removal of.the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be.implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 12. 13. All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be identified and protected from impact of any kind. Appropriate protective measures shall be installed after consultation with the project and City Arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04,070 of the Palo Alto Municipal.Code. 14.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: ao No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. . b. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c.Trees to be r~etained shallbe irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The appropriate maintenance measures shall be determined by the project arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist. 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 1 5 14.C CULTURAL RESOURCES The 27,000 square foot site contains a large, single family residence commonly known as the Fowler Mansion. The home is located in a National Register Historic District and is, therefore, considered a landmark structure. The proposed land division will locate the existing landmark residence on a newly- configured 18,000 square feet lot (parcel 2) . The proposal would necessitate the construction of a new garage or the relocation of the existing carriage house for the existing house to comply with the City of Palo Alto parking requirement. The newly created lot (parcel 1) will be developed with one new single family home. The Historic Resources Board reviewed the project at their regular October 15, 1997 public meeting and recommended the following mitigating conditions of project approval which will bring potential impacts to this cultural resource to e less than significant level. The Heritage Resources Board minutes dated 10/15/97 are incorporated by reference. Note: Because of its landmark status, any future alteration of the Fowler Mansion shall automatically be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Board in . compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Mitigation Measures: 1. The new structure on the proposed Parcel 1 must complete the Historic Compatibility Review process and return to the Historic Resources Board for final review and approval. 2. The location of the new garage or the relocation of the carriage house and the new driveway on the proposed Parcel 2 must be reviewed and approved the Historic Resources Board. The final configurat~ion of the driveway and new garage or relocated carriage house shall be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for .Rehabilitation. I PROPERTY KNOWN AS L , PALO ALTO, CAUFORN A, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature 221 kingsley.mnd 97-EIA-26 Page 16 Aufrnuth Fox Weed & LeBlanc A ProfeSSional Corpr}rotlOn Attorneys Via Hand Delivery January 30, 1998 Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Approval of Parcel Map 97-PM-003’ at 221 Kingsly Avenue, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Schreiber: This letter is to advise you that my client, William C. Lewis, shall appeal the approval of the above referenced Parcel Map. Your approval of this Parcel Map was set forth in a letter dated January 22, 1998, addressed to Mr. Jon Schink. The required fee of $100.00 and the appeal form are enclosed with this letter. Please advise the undersigned of the schedule of hearings for the appeal when such information is available. The principal reasons for the appeal of the decision are: 1. Approval of the Parcel Map permits an irreversible, substantial negative effect upon an important historic property in the City of Palo Alto, at a time when the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of standards applicable to modification of historic homes. The deletion of virtually all of the rear yard of the property by the subdivision constitutes a significant impact on the historic characteristics and value of the property. The appellant may introduce expert testimony to this effect to counter the report of the applicant’s consultant upon which the approval seems to have heavily relied. 2. The appellant desires to examine the validity and efficacy of the applicant’s arborist report, a copy of which was never provided to the appellant or other concerned neighbors, in order to fully understand the implications of planned construction upon the significant oak tree located on the pr.oposed new parcel. 3. The appellant questions the authority of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 2o0 Palo Alto, Calilbrnia 94301 Telephone (650) 322-7100 Facsimile 1650) 322-6635 Mr. Kenneth’R. Schreiber January 30, 1998 Page 2 Quality Act, in light of the prohibition against delegation. to staff of approval of a negative declaration by the decision making body set forth in Section 15025 of the CEQA Guidelines. The appellant also questions the validity of basing a Negative Declaration on reports by consultants hired directly by the applicant, as opposed to the City. Mr. Lewis anticipates that he will be joined by other concerned neighbors in expressing opposition to the approval of the Parcel Map at the public hearings. Very truly yours, AUFMUTH, FOX, WEED & LEBLANC By: H. Weed cc: William C. Lewis City of Polo Alto CiU Council, Planning Commission and Planning Division Suhdivi.~ion nf 221 King~Jey Avenue!Hearing Seheduled for January ,q, 1998 This Petition is to advise you of the concerns of the undersigned regarding the proposed subdivision of 221 Kingsley Avenue, Polo Alto, a property localed in the historic Professotville district. The property, is the site of the tnigillal re,,fidcnt~c iu (l~e area. The historic, and aesthetic qualities of thi.~ virt.,ally unique proper~" will be, irreparably damaged by the almogt total elimiaxation (:f the rear yard of the residence (only ten ire, at ",’[11 remain) if the proposed subdivision is permitted. The undersigned object to the C~ty’s consideration of the proposed subdix, ision of this historically significant property ~t a ti, me when the City is conducting a comprehensive review of the policies ,and regulations which govern alterations to historic properties located in Polo Alto, The development of the regulations applicable to ,alteration of hist~’~ric t.esi~lences is scheduled for comple~ ion in May, ~ t~4~, and this prc~:e.~ ~ill deterraine whelher the Historic Resources Board will be granted a design review authority over mr.~difications to histo~ ic ~esiden~;e~ as oppo,~e0 t(, ils currt:nt advi,,~ry role, The tinderaigned feel it is premature, to permit the irrevocable subdivir, ion of th6 parcvel where the historic residence at 221 Kingsk;y Avenue is located prior to identification of the requirements which will apply to alteration of hi.~toric reside, nee.~ The.~e re, qui’rement.q will be developed by a consensus of PaJo Alto Citizens through the process undertaken ~ City Council direction. The undersigned urge you m prevent fl~e proposed irrevocable subdi~’ision of 221 Kirtgsley Avenue until all the ci~Lzens r~I Polo Al~o have had tb.e opportunity 1o have their voices,heard with respect tb the policies governing alleration ot: historic residences. Name Address 2. 3. 4, PETITION To~ Re: City of Palo Alto City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Division Subdivision of 221 Kingsley Avenue/Hearing Scheduled for January 8, 1998 This Petition is to advise you of the concerns of the undersigned regarding the proposed subdivision of 221 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, a property located in the historic Professorville district. The property is the site of the original residence in the area. The historic and aesthetic qualities of this virtually unique property will be irreparably damaged by the almost total elimination of the rear yard of the residence (only ten feet will remain) if the proposed subdivision is permitted. The undersigned object to the City’s consideration of the proposed subdivision of this historically significant property at a time when the City is conducting a comprehensive review of the policies and regulations which govern alterations to historic properties located in Palo Alto. The development of the regulations applicable tO alteration of historic residences is scheduled for completion in May~ 1998, and this process will determine whether the Historic Resources Board will be granted a design review authority over modifications to historic residences as opposed to its current advisory role. The undersigned feel it is premature to permit the irrevocable subdivision of the parcel where the historic residence at 221 Kingsley Avenue is located prior to identification of the requirements which will apply to alteration of historic residences. These requirements will be developed by a consensus of Palo Alto Citizens through the process undertaken at City Council direction. The undersigned urge you to prevent the proposed irrevocable subdivision of 221 Kingsley Avenue until all the citizens of Palo Alto have had the opportunity to have their voices heard with respect to the policies governing alteration of historic residences. 2. 3. 4. Name Address PETITION To:Cit7 of Pale Alto Ci~ Council, Plarming Commission and Planning Divisi:m Re:Subdivi.~io~ of 221 KinggJey Avenue./Hearinglgeheduled for January. g, 19t~g This Petition is to advise you of tile concerns of the undersigned regarding the prol~osed subdivision el~ 221 Kingsley Avenue, Pale Alto, a property located in the historic __ _ Professorville district. The property i.~ the. site of tim original rt:.~idtmt;r, iu the area. The historic and aesthetic qualities of this x4rt.uMiy unique proper~" will be irreparably damaged by the almost tot.’d elimination o~: the rear yard of the re~idene.e (only ten feet wilt remain) if the proposed subdivision is permitte0. Th~ undersigned object to the City’s c:’msideration of the proposed-subdivision of this historically significant proper~’ at a time when the City is conducting a comprehensive rmdew of the policies ,-and regulations wh_ich govern ~lterations to historic properties located in Pale Alto. The develoPment of the regulations applicable to alteration of historic residences is scheduled for completion in May: ~ t~!~, and this p~ t~xs’; wiB raetea-mme whether the Hi.eric Resources Board will be granted a design review authority crver modifications to bisl.o~ic rtmidet~ccs as ,~pr,.~svd t~)its current advi,~ry role. The undersigned feel it is premature, to permit the irrevo~,able subdivision of the, lnare.1 where the histo~’ic residence at 221 Khlgsley Avenue is located prior to identification of the requirements which will apply tofflter.~tion of hi~f~rie residenee.~. ’l’he.~e requirements will be developed by. a consensus of Pale A2.to Citizens through the process undertaken at City Council direction. The undersigned urge you to prevent the propo~d irrevocable subdivision of 221 Kingsley Avenue u~ttil all the citizens of Pale Alto have had the opportunity to have their voices heald with respect to the policies governing alteration of historic residences. Name Address 5. 20 November 1997 Theodore G. Erler 1115 Ramona St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-325-0385 Planning Division City of Palo Alto Civic Center, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: 221 Kingsley Avenue (97-PM-3) In response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the subject matter, I would like to express my concern with the proposed division of the 221 Kingsley Avenue property. The property is proposed for division to created two lots, one that would face Ramona Street the other on the corner of Ramona Street and Kingsley Avenue. The creation of a new lot and subsequent construction of a new home would have a substantial negative impact on the 1100 block of Ramona Street. First the division would destroy the beauty and spaciousness of the setting of the historic home currently on the property. In addition, it would.lead to the destruction on several historic structures now occupying the location of the new lot. Last, the 1100 block of Ramona Street is one of the only remaining blocks in Professorville that is entirely comprised of older homes. The division of the 221 Kingsley Avenue lot and the subsequent construction of a new home would forever destroy the uniqueness of this historic street. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, Theodore G. Erler To: Palo Alto Planning Board From: Asher Waldfogel Date: January 8, 1998 Subject: 221 Kingsley Subdivision I oppose the proposed subdivision of 221 Kingsley. You should reject this application until the city completes its debate about historic preservation in Professorville. I bought my house in Professorville five years ago. I chose Professorville because it is a real neighborhood. Professorville is an interesting place to live because it mixes together large landmark houses and smaller contributing houses, large lots and small ones, tenants and owners, old and new in a genuine urban neighborhood. Each block is unique. What "contributes" in a contributing structure is the relationship of large to small. Keeping intact the lot a landmark house was designed to sit on contributes to the neighborhood as much as saving any small house. No matter how much a proposed house design might borrow design details from its neighbors, it can’t mitigate the adverse effects of building up. You are holding this hearing today because you are not required to approve this application. As the planning board you must take the long view, and ask yourself if this right for the neighborhood. The neighborhood is already under a lot of pressure around the edges from Embarcadero traffic, increased commercial development on Alma, High and University, and the pending Medical Clinic site redevelopment. You don’t need to add to the pressure by splitting a lot right now. Since you are not required to approve this application, I urge you tO reject it. Aufmuth Fox \,Veed & LeBlanc A Professional Corporation Attorneys Via Facsimile (329-2154) January 7, 1998 ’ Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator City. of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 221 Kingsley Avenue/Proposed Parcel Map - Dear Lisa: This office represents William C. Lewis, who resides at 1116 Ramona Street, Palo Alto. Mr. Lewis’ property is adjacent to the new lot which would be created if the Parcel Map to be considered by you at the hearing on Thursday, January 8, 1998, is approved. This letter is to advise you of the concerns of.Mr. Lewis and several other residents of the neighborhood regarding the proposed subdivision of the property at 221 Kingsley Avenue. Mr. Lewis and other concerned neighbors are disturbed about the impacts of the proposed. subdivision upon the 221 Kingsley Avenue property and the neighborhood in general. The proposed subdivision would degrade the historical character of the property and the neighborhood by placing the rear property line only ten feet behind the existing residence. Approval of the proposedsubdivision is ill advised at the present time in view of the City’s ongoing evaluation of regulations applicable to modification of historic homes. It seems anomalous to permit an irrevocable subdivision of property which will have such drastic effects upon the character of this unique historic property at a time when modifications of other historic properties are not permitted until completion of the City’s review and amendment of regulations for historic homes. Mr. Lewis and the neighbors are also concerned about.the effect of any development on the proposed new lot on the oak tree located on the property, whichtree significantly affects all of the surrounding properties. In addition to these concerns, which will be expressed by Mr. Lewis and other neighbors at the hearing, I have advised Mr. Lewis that two significant legal issues exist with respect to 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone (650) 322-7100 Facsimile (650) 322-6635 Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator January 7, 1998 Page 2 action by the Zoning Administrator on the Parcel Map and the related Negative Declaration. I have enclosed a copy of Section 21.12.090 of the Palo Alto MunicipalCode. Subsection (e) provides that action on a preliminary parcel map shall be taken by the director of planning. This subsection does not permit the director of planning to delegate this function to any other party. I have also enclosed Section 15025 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15025). Please note subsection (b) which provides that the decision- making body of a public agency shall not delegate approval of a Negative Declaration. Please also note the second paragraph of the Discussion section which indicates the regulation codifies the holding in Kleist v. City of Glendale, which I have confirmed continues to be binding precedent as of this date. Although it is not the desire of Mr. Lewis to engage in any legal dispute with the City, if necessary Mr. Lewis is prepared to question the validity of any approval of the Parcel Map or the Negative Declaration by the Zoning Administrator as violative of the provisions of both the Palo Alto Municipal Code and applicable California regulations and judicial decisions. In addition, Mr. Lewis has not had the opportunity to review the Initial Study on which the proposed Negative Declaration is based, or the procedures by which notice of the hearing on the Negative Declaration was given, and reserves his right.s to challenge such matters by appropriate l~gal action ff necessary. Mr. Lewis and the neighbors are hopeful that ,the Zoning Administrator will consider the issues raised in opposition of the proposed subdivision to be of major significance, with the result that consideration of the proposed Parcel Map will be deferred to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Such deferral seems particularly appropriate at the present time, in light of the City’s ongoing process of identifying standards to be applied to the modification of historic properties. As noted.above, it seems highly inconsistent to permit a major modification of an historic property by approval of a subdivision, when less significant modifications to historic properties are not currently permitted due to the pending finalization of appiicable ordinances. Please call with any questions or comments you may have regarding the issues discussed in this letter. Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator January 7, 1998 Page 3 Very truly yours, AUFMUTH, FOX, WEED & LEBLANC Michael H. Weed cc: William C. Lewis 21.12.090 PALO ALTO MIn~CIPAL CODE impact report or supplemental environmental im- pact report is certified by a decision maker. (Ord. 3157 §1 (part), 1.979) 21.12.090 Action on tentative and pre- liminary parcel maps. (a) Staff review. Upon receipt of a tentative map or preliminary parcel map, the director of planning shall transmit copies to the city engineer, chief building official director of utilities, chief of police, fire chief, director of transportation, and such other departments of the city, and any other agencies, as may be required by law or deemed appropriate. Each involved city department shall prompdy inform the director of planning of .any areas of the application which are incomplete. Not later than ten days after issuance of a notice of completeness by the director of planning, each such department shall submit to the director of planning a written report containing each depart- ment’s determination of whether the proposed subdivision complies with all applicable provi- sions of law and the requirements of that depart- ment, and any departmental recommendation concerning the proposed subdivision. (b) Reports to planning commission. In the case of a tentative map, the director of planning shall make a written report to the planning com- mission, incorporating therein the recommenda- tions of all other departments and agencies con- cemed. The report shall contain a recommenda- tion of the director of planning recommending approval, denial, or approval with conditions, of the tentative map, the findings and grounds for such recommendation, and such other information as the director of planning may deem relevant. Said recommendation and any subseqt~nt recom- mendations or actions by the director of platming, the planning commission ’ and the city council approving, conditionally approving, or denying any temative map or tnr.limimry pamel map shall be based upon a determination by the acting body whether the proposed subdivision complies and is consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, this title, the Palo Alto comprehensive plan, including all elements thereof, and all other provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law, including but not limited to Section 66473.5 and 66474 of the Government Code. Any approval of a tentative map or preliminary parcel map may be made subject to such condi- tions as are deemed reasonably necessary to in- sure compliance with those provisions. Such con- ditions may include, but shall not be limited to, required dedications and improvements, measures required to mitigate the environmental, safety, traffic, and other detrimental impacts of the sub- division, and such other conditions as may be required to insm-e compliance with all policies, objectives and goals of the Palo Alto compre- hensive plan. (c) Action by planning commission. Within fifty days of the filing date of a .tentative map, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing at either a regular or special meeting of the plan- ning commission and thereaiter shall recommend to the city council approvaL conditional approval, or denial of the map, and any conditions upon which such approval should be granted. The planning commission’s recommendation shall include the grounds and findings upon which its recommendation is based. Such fifty day period may be extended by mutual consent of the plan- ning commission and the applicant. The appli- cant’s consent to such an extension shall be pre- sumed unless the applicant makes timely objection thereto within the fifty-day period or at the time ~ matter is cominued beyond such period. (d) Action by city council Except where a time extension is mtrmally consemed to by the city council and ~ applicant, or the applicant’s con- sent to an extension is presumed as set out above, within the time limits prescribed by the Sub- division Map Act, the city council shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative. map. Prior to taking such action, the city council shall hold a public hearing at either a regular or special meeting of the coundl. (e) . Action on preliminary pare, el map. Sub- je= to the appeal procedures of this title, the di- rector of planning shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny any preliminary parcel map 2112 SUBDMSIONS AND OTHER DMSIONS OP L,~d~D 21.12.110 filed. The director of planning shall take such ac~on within fifty days of the date of filing, un- less ex~ended by the mutual consent of the direc- tor of planning and the applicant. Prior to mldng any such action, the director of planning shall hold a public hearing at which any interested per- son shall be allowed to present testimony regard- ing the preliminary parcel map. If, in the opinion of the director of planning, there are issues of major significance associated with the proposed parcel map, such map may be deferred by the di- rector of planning to the planning commission and the city council for processing in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. (f) Notice of hearing. (I) Not.ice of the hearing required by sub- sections (c), (d), or (e) above shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than twelve days prior to the date of the hearing. (2) AdditionaLly, the city shall marl written notice of such hearing at least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing to each owner of record of real property witlRn ninety-one and four-tenths meters (three hundred feet) of the exterior bound- ary of the property for which classification is sought as such owner of record is shown in the last equalized assessment roll and to owners or occupants of the property wifftin ninety-one and four-tenths meters (thr~ hundred feet) as shown on the city utility customer f’de. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall con- stitute a good-faith effort to provide notice,andthe failure of any owner or Occupant to receive notice shall not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from raking any action nor affect the validity of any action. (3) The notice of public hearing shall con- rain the following: (A) The exact address, if known, of the property involved, or the location of the property involved if the exac~ address is not known. (’B) The time, place, and purposes of the (C) A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the city, of the subdivision applied for;, (D) Reference to the appLication on file for particulars; and (E) A statement that any interested per- son, or agent thereof, may appear and be heard. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any city action. (4) In addition to any other information re- quired, the applicam shaLl submi~ with im applica= rion a list of all owners of record of real property wifl’~in ninety-one and four-tenths meters (three hundred feeO of the exterior boundary of the properzy to be subdivided as shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semi- annual real estate update information). (Ord. 3536 {341, 1984: Ord. 3465 {}62. 1983: Ord. 3345 {}34, 1982: Ord. 3273 {}7, 1981: Ord. 3157 {31 (part), 1979) 21.12.100 Merger and resubdivision. Subdivided lands may be merged and resub- divided without first reverting the acreage so long as all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and this title are .complied with. Such application shall be fried and processed in the same fashion as a subdivision. Recordation of the final or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate parcels into one parcel and the. resubdivision of such parcel. Any unused fees, deposits, or secu- rity previously made or posted pertaining to the property shall be credited pro rata toward any requirements for the same purposes which are applicable at the rime of the resubdivision. (Ord. 3157 §1 (par0, 1979) 21.12.110 Amendment to approved ten- tative map or preliminary parcel map. (a) Upon application of the subdivider, an amendment to a tentative map or preliminary par- cel map, provided it is not a map for a condo- minim conversion, may be made if the amend- ment is approved by both the director of planning 2113 Rev. Ord. Supp. 12/92 De!~t±c.~ o~15025. (~) A public a~ency ~y assign .specific functions to its sz~-ff ~o ~ssist in administering C~A. Functions ~4%ich ~y be de!e~xted include but are not limited to: (I) Determining ~ether .a project is exeupt. (2) Conducting ~n Initial Study and deciding ~ether to prep-are a drait EIR or Ne~ative Dec!ar~tion. (3) Preparing a Ne~tive Declaration or EIR. (4) Determining that a Negative Declaration h.~s been c(xnpleted within a period of 105 days. (5) Pre~ring responses to comments on environmental documents. (6) Filing of notices. (b) The decision-m~_king body of a public agency shall not de!e~=mte the following functions: (I) Reviewing ~nd considering a final EIK or approving a Ne~tive Declaration prior to approving ~ project. (2) The makinK offindings as required by Sections 15091 s_ud 15093. (c) Where an advisor~/ body ~ach as a pis,uning c~umission is required to make a recommendation on a project to the -decision-m~king body, the advisory body shall also review and consider the EIK or Negative Declaration in draft or final form. Note: Authority cited:. Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; \Reference: Section 21082, Public Resources Code; Kleist v. City of Glendale, (1976) 5~ Cal. App. 3d 770. Formerly Section 15055. Discussion: This section~ is a recodification,, of former Section 15055 with one addition~l feature. The section is necess~l in ¯ order to identify functions in-the CEQA process that a decision-~king body c-n delegate to other ps_rts of the Lead Agency. The agency can oper-te more efficiently when many functions are delegated to the staff r~ther than requiring the decision-ms_king body to perform all the functions. Subsection (b) codifies the holding in Kleist v. City of Glendale by identifyin~ the functions that canno~ be dele~ted. The functions of conslderimg the environmental documen~ and making findings in response to si~miZlcant effects identified in a final EIR are fundamental to the 75 CEQA process. These steps brine to~ether the e~.~-iromment~l evaluation and t~e decision on t~he project. This sect!on is intended to assure that the environment! ~lysis of project is brought to be~r on the actual decision on the project. The section also serves to guide agencies frcm practices that h.%ve bee_n ruled invu!id. Subsection (c) reflects an administ.~-tive Interpretation which applies the requirements of CEQA to advisory bodies. Such bodies need not amd may not certify an EIR, but t~hey should consider the effects of a project in makinE their recommendations. This section also suEgests that also su~ests that advisory bodies may consider a dr~ft EIR. Article 3. Authorities Granted to ~Iblic A~encies by C~.A 15040. (a) CEQA is intended to be used in conjunction with dis- ,~ cretioms_~/ po~ers g.--anted to public agencies by other la~s. (b) CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers ~--an~ed to the agency by other laws. (c) Where another law grants an agency discretionary powers, CEQA supplements those discretionary powers by authorizing the agency to use the discretionaz7 po~ers to miti~te or avoid significant effects on the environmen~ when it is feasible to do so with ,respect to projects subject to the po~ers of the agency. Prior to January 1, 198S ,~ CEQA provided implied authority for ~u a~ency to use its discretiomar7 powers to mitigate or avoid significant eZfects on the envlromment. Effective Januar7 l, 198S, CEQA provides ~press authority to do so. (d) The exercise of the discretionary powers may for~s that had not bee.n ~pected before the enactment CEQA, but the exercise must be within the scope of the power o ~ (e) The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental 9rotection shall be consistent with express or implied %imitations provided by other laws. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Eeference: Sections 21000, 21001, 21002, 21002.1, and ,21004, Public Eesource’s Code; Section Cha.oter 14S8, Statutes of 1989-; Golden Gate Brid~e, etc., District v. M_uz~z_i_, (~978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 707; E.D.F.v. M~t~e~s, 410 F. Supp. $66, ~9 (D.D.C., 197S); Friends of Mammoth v. 8oard of .Supe..r.v%sors, (1972) 8 Cal. Plne~ood I=ves~ors v. C_i___ty__o._~__~, (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 1030. 76 John H. And Sybil A. Pfluke 221 Kingsley Avenue PaloAlto, CA 94301 Ms Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator, Palo Alto Re: Pending application to subdivide 221 Kingsley RECEIVED 1 21998 Department of ~nnin~ an January 12, 1998 Dear Ms Grote, We are the residents of the historic landmark home at 221 Kingsley Avenge in Palo Alto. At present there is before the Planning Division and the Zoning Board an application to divide the existing 27,971 square foot parcel into two lots of 9,056 and 18,915 square feet, respectively. I was unable to attend the public hearing that was conducted by the Zoning Administrator on January 8, since I was suffering with influenza at the time. It is my understanding that a decision will be made on the application within 10 days of the meeting date. The purpose of this letter is to present a .clarification of our position regarding.the application. The property at 221 Kingsley has provided a home for my family over the past 23 years, During this time we were able to raise five children in an environment that was comfortable, yet quite functional. On the front lawn and in the house we often provided a meeting place for school and youth functions. In the past we hosted faculty meetings of Palo Alto HighSchool for teaching awards. On several occasions we have hosted awards parties for high school sport teams. For several years this house provided a meeting place for various committees of Boy Scout Troop 57 and Cub Pack 57. In recent years our usage of the property has transformmed from a functional setting for us to raise our five children to a comfortable retirement home whereby we can accomodate frequent visits from our now rather large extended family, it is oar present desire to effect some improvements on the property that reflect our present needs for a home. At the same time we wish to do some rather sizable repairs that are now necessary to preserve the home. It is in defference to our current needs that we wish to separate off, by subdivision, the rear portion of the lot, rather than do the necessary maintenance and reconstruction on the buildings that are there. The reinvested funds acquired from the subdivision would provide the means to put forth the needed upgrading. It is our intention to retain 221 Kingsley as our home for the rest of our lives. We feel that the present time is appropriate to effect the changes that reflect our needs for the future. Our home is listed as a Historical Landmark and is located in the Professorville National Register. Historic District. We are tully aware of the value of our property to the community-at-large. During our residence here we feel that we. have been exemplary custodians of this community resource. In that role we have been quite willing to provide community access to our home and garden. In 1993 our home was the.feature property of the Holiday House Tour put on by the Palo Alto Historical Society. In 1994 The Leadership Palo Alto Board of Advisors conducted their Centennial Year Graduation ceromonies and party in our garden. In the future we fully intend to continue making our home available to such appropriate community activities. We are seriously concerned that our future custody of 221 Kingsley remain in compliance with historical tradition of Professorville. it is part of our concern that our nearest neighbor, who will occupy the subdivided lot, will also comply with that tradition. For that reason we have engaged a team of Palo Alto residents to assist in the development of the lot. All members of this team have stellar reputations for effecting development that respects the historic traditions of the neighborhoods in which they have worked. We feel that the plan that has been submitted in conjunction with the appplication for subdivision will be a marked improvement over the past usage of the space and will be in perfect harmony with the tradidional environment of Professorville. ~Sincerely, ~John H. Pfluke / Attachment C Draft Findings for Parcel Map Approval 221 Kingsley Avenue 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26 The Parcel Map is in compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it results in two lots that meet single-family residential densities and that preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood as called for in Policy 1, Program 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Parcel Map encourages the private preservation of buildings which have historic Or architectural merit or both as called for in Policy 2 of the Urban Design Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan in that dividing the existing property into two lots will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure that will remain on the resulting Parcel 2 and will provide a potential means of financing the rehabilitation of that landmark structure. The Historic Report prepared by Page and Turnbull, dated June 16, 1997, on file in the office of the Planning Division, documents the history of the site and the landmark structure on the site, known commonly as the Fowler Mansion, and verifies that dividing the parcel into two parcels that conform to standard R-1 (single-family residential) requirements will not have an adverse impact on the landmark structure or on the overall site. The City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board reviewed the parcel map application and the Page and Tumbull Historic Report on October 15, 1997 and recommended approval of the minor subdivision based on the fact that there will be no adverse impacts to the historic site or landmark structure as a result of the subdivision. The Historic Resources Board recommended that specific conditions of project approval be attached to the parcel map regarding preservation and restoration of the existing "carriage house" and Historic Resource Board review of the new structure to be built on the resulting Parcel 1. The conditions of approval as recommended by the Historic Resources Board are attached to this parcel map approval along with other pertinent conditions of approval. The Parcel Map is consistent with Title 18, Zoning, of the Palo alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in that both resulting parcels meet all minimum development standards, including lot size and dimensional requirements. Attachment D Revised Conditions of Approval 221 Kingsley Avenue 97-PM-003, 97-EIA-26 The Final Map recorded for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the Parcel Map, received September 8, 1997, on file in the office of the Palo Alto Planning Division. If determined to be worthy by the Historic Resources Board, the existing Carriage House on parcel 1 shall be preserved and restored, either on parcel 1 or moved to parcel 2. If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and is moved to parcel 2, it shall be located on the southwestern portion of the site and shall be accessed from Kingsley Avenue and shall be subject to review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). If the Carriage House is determined to be worthy of preservation by the HRB and is retained on parcel 1 and a new garage is constructed on parcel 2, the new garage shall be subject to review by the HRB. In either case, the HRB shall review the proposal for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval. The house and any other structures to be built on parcel 1 shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the recommendation shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for final approval: The HRB shall review the house and other structures for compliance with the Historic Compatibility Standards, or the applicable standards in place at the time of review. When reviewing the restoration and relocation of the carriage house and/or other improvements to the Fowler Mansion property or on the newly created Parcel 1, the Historic Resources Board shall consider appropriate modifications to the perimeter landscaping and/or fencing to ensure that the historic structure’s public visibility will be maintained. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a six foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated on parcel 2 along the north and east property lines and on parcel 1 along the north property line. After recordation of the final map, the applicant shall send the Utilities Engineering Division of the Utilities Department a copy of the recorded final map showing the location of the six foot wide utility easement. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. PM 350 25 shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for the final parcel map. Monuments shall be set at lot comers. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for parcel 1, the applicant shall submit a preliminary soils report for the project or apply for a waiver of soils report for the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious surface area. A storm drainage fee adjustment shall take place in the month following construction by the Building Inspection division. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest (section 12.12.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall provide a construction logistics plan addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City ofPalo alto’s Trucks and Truck Route ordinance, Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal code, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo alto. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on parcel 1, the applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for any construction proposed in the public right of way (Section 12.08.010 of the PAMC). The applicant or his/her designee shall contact the City of Palo Alto Public Works inspector prior to any work performed in the public right of way as required by section 12.08.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). No storage of construction materials shall be permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of the Public Works Engineering Division, The applicant shall require his/her contractor to incorporate best management practices for any construction on either of the two parcels with regard to storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution control Program. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans shall be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. City Planning Arborist PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF.THE PARCEL MAP 18.To insure the indefinite retention of the 1 .arge Coast Live Oak on Parcel 1, any development or property improvements, including demolition or grading, shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 19.Tree Protection and Preservation Plan: The applicant shall be required to select a certified project arborist to develop a tree protection and preservation plan that will recommend guidelines for the design, measures to protect the tree from injury or permanent damage during demolition, grading or construction, arborist inspection schedule; and ongoing maintenance needs. The City Arborist shall have discretion to make adjustments to the specific requirements of the report if warranted based upon field conditions to insure that the health of the trees will be adequately protected. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant as the Project Arborist. The Project Arborist shall be responsible for all on site activity involving the welfare of the trees to be retained, including, reports, appraisals, tree preservation plans, and inspections as required. A certified arborist shall be an individual who: possesses current International Society of Arboriculture certification; is a member of the Americ .an Society of Consulting Arborists; or a member of the California Arborists Association. 20. 21. To enable effective tree protection measures, a complete and accurate set of development plans shall be made available to the project arborist. Plans shall indicate proposed structures, accessory structures, foundations, planned hard scape and walkways. All utilities, both public and private, that require trenching or boring shall be shown on the plans and shall show that no conflict will occur. between the utilities and the Coast Live Oak. This shall include publicly owned trees within the fight-of-way. Property improvements shall not be detrimental or injurious to the Coast Live Oak. These improvements include but are not limited to building height, foundations, drainage, grading or trenching for utilities or landscape irrigation. A tree protection zone shall be established not less than twenty-five (25’) feet from the trtmk perimeter or as the project arboris( determines, whichever is greater. This area shall be enclosed with protective fencing for the duration of the project until completion. Final landscaping shall be installed while the protective fencing is in place. 22.To allow the Coast Live Oak roots to thrive, plans shall show that any hard scape surfaces within twenty-five feet of the trunk perimeter are of a pervious nature, and not require a cut or fill in excess of four inches above existing grade. 23.Plans shall show that no permanent irrigation is designed within twenty-five (25’) of the Coast Live Oak trunk perimeter. THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION NOTES ARE TO APPEAR ON THE SITE, DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PLANS AS APPLICABLE 24. 25. The City Planning Arborist shall have received a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plan shall be protected during const,ruction. The approved tree protection plans shall be included in demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the grading plans if it stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees*. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. lf the above will block the sidewalk or street right of way, the above fencing may enclose the entire planting strip to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. lf the trees are in a small tree well, the trees shall be wrapped with 2- inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic fencing. They shall not be allowed to dig into the bark. While this protects the trunk, caution must be used not to damage any branches. Major scaffold limbs may require the same treatment as the above or as directed by the City Arborist. Each protective fence shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." 26.If pruning or maintenance on the Coast Live Oak is recommended in the arborist report, it shall meet the following industry standards. ao All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. Co All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society ofArboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 27.Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. 28.The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 29.All neighbors’ trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from impact of any kind. 30.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 31.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. All specifications for working on Protected Trees shall be written and administered by a qualified arborist. All work on Protected Trees performed within the City of Palo Alto shall be in accordance with the industry Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations outlined in the ANSI A300-1995 and ANSI Z133-1994. All specified tree work shall be designed to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, according to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines for Certified Arborists and Tree Workers. DURING DEMOLITION 32.Pavement and Hard scape Removal near the Oak: Removal of existing pavement over tree roots shall include the following precautions: Break into manageable pieces with a jackhammer or pick and hand load the pieces onto skiploader. Skiploader must remain on undisturbed pavement. Do not remove base rock that has been exploited by established absorbing roots. Apply tree chips over the exposed area within one hour, wet chips and base rock. The roots must not be allowed to dry out at any time. 33.The removal of the Shop and the relocation of the Carriage House shall be implemented by working from the perimeter of the tree toward the center. Removal of the foundation of slab shall then be performed by the above technique. DURING CONSTRUCTION 34.All neighbors’ trees that overhang the projectsite shall be identified and protected from impact of any kind. Appropriate protective measures shall be installed after consultation with the project and City Arborist. 35. ~36. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees damaged during construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b.The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Co Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The appropriate maintenance measures shall be determined by the project arborist and reviewed by the City Arborist.