The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0514.000! I - ". o September 20~ 1990 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California o 422 PAI.O ALTO AVENUE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPl'IONS; VARIANCES FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 Members of the Council: Report in Brief This appliGat~on is the result of efforts to save a category II historic ~een Anne residence located at 545 Forest Avenue~ The applicant is proposing ~o subdivide a 14.425-square-foot parcel located at 422 Palo Alto Avenue into two single-family lots of 6,89) square feet (Lot 1) and 1,352 square feet (Lot 2). The application includes a request for exceptions to allow lot width of 56 feet and 52 feet, respectively, 'Where 6·0 feet is normally required. The historic house 'Would be moved onto Lot 1 from its present location at 545 Forest Avenue. The existing house and carport .... ould remain on Lot. 2. As a result of the lot split, the relocated historic structure on Lot 1 would encroach into the daylight plane in both side yards~ and exceed allo~ed floor area. The existing ~ouse to remain on [.c·t 2 would exceed allowed floor area on tnis smaller lot~ and the existing carport would encroach into the daylight plane for accessory structures. This application includes variance requests for both lots. Additional background info~mation and analysis is contained in the attacned september 7 staff report. Plannin.g Commission Act~ion On September 12~ 1990~ the Planning Commission unanimOUSly recommended denial of the applicant·s request for a preliminary parcel map with exceptions for lot width, and for floor area and daylight plane variances for Lot 1 and Lot 2. The Commission did not support the staff recommendation for approval, for reasons detailed in the draft minutes of the meetinq and summarized beloW'. 'l'he project would be detrimental and injuricus to the. neighborhood in specific, and the community in general, due L ." \ i ~ I i • - o o to potential tree d~mage and tree loss along the proposed house moving route. The City's trees are experiencing significant stcess from the current drought conditions. The combination of drought stress and severe pruning would most likely result in permanent change to the canopy and the lo~s of several significant trees. The trees most affected by the move would be those in the 20,0 block of waverley street and those at the corner of Waverley street and Palo Alto Avenue. The trimming of the trees en Waverley street would change the form of the existing tree canopy to such an extent that it ~ould not return to its previous condition {i.e., the trees vould not touch as they overhang the street). Two l~rge trees at the corner of Waverley street and Palo Alto Avenue,. a Coast Live oak and a Chestnut ... very likely would not survive the tri~~ing needed to accommodate the house. The parcel map and variance actions WEre based on the premise that the historic house ~ould be placed on the newly created lot. The City Attorneyrs office advised that if the parcel map .. ere approved I the parcel could be subdivided even if the histo·ric house were .r:ot located on the new lot. The commission did not suppo,rt approving the lot spl it for the existing house ... wben there was no assurance that the actions would result in tbe relocation of the historic bouse. While the Commission did not oppose the moving of the house in qeneral ... they could not support moving it to this proposed site. They did encourage all parties involved to consider alternative sites for the hou.se. The minutes of the Planning commission meeting and the Planning Commission staff report~ dated September 7. 1990 ... are attached and provide additional information and background. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that City cou~il, based en the findings present~d below: 1) Deny the preliminary parcel map .... ith exceptions for lot. -width. 2) Deny the variance requests for Lo·t 1 (historic house) and Lot 2 (eXisting house) to allow daylight plane encroachments and excess floor area. CMR:51C:O 422palo.cmrjljt 9/20/90 -2- ~\ ;-o c - o Findings 1. 2. The granting of the preliminary map and variances 'Will be detriJ!'lenta} and injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and in the City, due to the immeas'Jrable damaqe which ~ould occur as a result of tree trimming and tree removal on neighborhood streets necessary as part of the house movill9r The project will not be in compliance vith the City's Compreherisive Plan~ in that the project vould not ·protect and enhance those qualities ~hich make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable-(Housing Element Policy 3}. If the Council wishes to approve the lot split and related variances, it should adopt the staff recomrrlendation on page 6 and the Findings and Conditions on ~ges 6 to 10 of the attached Sep~ember 1 staff report. -fL·.. , 7/ " , <, .' .• <.£ /~. KENNETH £. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment AttaGl~ents: Staff Report to Planning Commission of 9/7/90, with attachments. including Enviro~ental Assessment Planning Commission excerpt minutes of 9/12/90 Suhmittal by Greg cbesson~ received at hearing Submittal by ~athleen Craig~ Arborist Report. received at hearing Letter submitted by Joseph and Goli Cboghi, received at hearing Letter submitted by Roger Craig, received at hearing Letter SUbmitted by I>illian Godbee, dated August 9, 1990 Letter submitted by various neighbors of 422 Palo Alto Avenue, date A~qust 8. 1990 CMR: 5H:0 9/20/90 422palo.cmr/ljt -)- L -. • • \ ( \. ; '\ \ ',.'5.." '~>" ."""". f·:' ' f , .. I • • ., ~L; _f~!· i I , r. , i I / o o ~etlt.l()on OVPUsinq dJ..;tion 5utJ"itt£~(j; l..Iy :ko,]er cCdi'l .. dated-Sep,tember 6,. 1990 Petition oppo~ing action submitted by Teresa Munoz, received at hearing Estimated Tree Trimming and Removal documentation prepared by staff Revision to Conditi~n 12 made at public hearinq on 9/12/90 Preliminary Parcel Map plans (Council Members onlYl variance Plans for Lot I,. Historic House (Council Members only) variance Plans for Lot 2, Existing House (Council Members only) cc: PlannIng Commission Historic Resources Board Timothy D~ Trailer,. 394 University Avenue ... #30:0, Palo Alto .. CA 94301 Moyer Associates Architects, 430 Sherman Avenue ... Palo Alto .. CA 94306 Robert oneto, HMH Engineers, 1353 Oakland Road, San Jose, CA 95161 Ken Alsman .. 1057 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Suzanne and Greg Chesson~ 115 Waverley Street l Palo Alto. CA 94301 Kathleen and Roger Craiqt 101 Waverley Streett Palo Alto, CA 94301 Laurie Harden, "6 Ruthven Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chris Sc!'Iiebold~ 4-80 Palo Al to Avenue t Palo Alto, CA 94201 Andy Stevens~n, 120 Waverley street l Palo Alto, C~ 94301 Joseph Choqhi, ,51 Ruthven Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Alex McComas~ 42'9 RUthven Avenue, Palo A1 to. CA 94301 Mic~ele Ganey, ~O Waverley street l Palo Alto~ CA 94301 Teresa Munoz~ 431 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto~ CA 94301 David Cheriton~ 131 cowper str€et, Palo Alto, CA 94)01 Andy StevensOO I 120 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Jencan CampoSt 436 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mark Nanevicz, 228 Waverley street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR: 514:0 422palo.cmr/ljt 9/20j90 -4- \ - . ,- -, '.- o .\ ' .; .... ~ , ,,', / o TO: 'AL~AlTO 'LANNIN; COMMISSION rilE NO.: 90-PK-3, 'O-EIA-U, 90-'-27, 90-r-28 PREPARED BI: Lori Top1ey DATE: September 7, 1990 PROJftf.lHfOIlllA"'T ... I.>IjOS"--________ _ Rfguest@d Actions; PRDJEtl SUMllARY 422 Pol. Alto Avenue Polo Alto, CA T1mothy ;~ frifler 114 Unl •• ,.lt, Avenue, 1100 ,.10 -Alto, CA 94301 Sime is lpplicant lJ Appro~ll mf prelimfnary parcel map to divide one txfstfng pircel In!~ two, wit~ exceptions for lot widt,; 2) Approvo1 of ~'Jlig~! ,lane wIT1lnci for lot 1 {new 'lstorlc bouse); 3) ApprQwal of floor arei Yirfance and daylight plane 'Irianc. for lot 2 (e~isting house and carpcrtl_ {he appltcant pr~pos'$ t~ subdi,td. l 14.425-square-foot par,~t into two sin91.-fa~1l, lots of 1.893 sqUir. f •• t (Lot J) ond 1.3Sl SQu.re feet (lot 2)_ The application also includes i reque5t fer excepti~ns to allow Jot .idt~s of 56 feet and 51 fe~t ~eTe 60 feet is normall, required. The existlng cottage Yilt ~e r~moved and i Category II ~i'toric struct~re rtlocited to t~t]~ The existfng house and carport will bl r.tlined on lot 2. H1&PKH£HP£DACTIQN Staff recommends that the Plinoing Commission recommend t~at tne Cit, Council: 1) Approve the prtliminar1 m~p with Ixclptfons fo~ Jot wldt~; l} Approve th~ varilnel rlqu.st for LDt t (~lstDrfc ~cuse) to allow d.ylight ,lone .ncro,c~me.t •• f )3.5 f •• t for, dist.nce of 42.5 ot t~e nart. property li~~~ and 1 foot for ~ distance of 2.25 feet at t~e $Quth propertJ line; and t 3} Approve tht Y~riance request (or Lot 2 (e~isting house) to allow J,823 ~QuaTe feet of floor iTt) i. exctss of that )11ow~d, and i dal~ight 4ZZpalo_sr 1jt 1::'~~:-:~i~ .~, --, ,. " ; '; '.; -. 9/7/90 Page I -. • .' , ,'. o o 'plane encroadllTlut for the carport of I.S feet for .. di·,Laoce of 2) feet at t~e south pr~pert, line. These ~pprQ~als are subject to t~e findings ind conditions of approvil outlIned ;1 t.;$ Ttport. Parc~LSfze; A5}fssor's Parcel Number; [.'( i 5 t i l1Q ___ ll:)J1I".9.~ (omprehe~s;ve Plan pg~Jgl)jl..tJQJ1';' EIisting Dens~tr: fIistirog Land pse: ~andatory Action Date(s]: 411pat •. <r ljt -.---------;---.'._" 14,24S sq.ft. (0.33 acres) 110-09·058 I-I Single f~il, Residentiil 3 units iler acre One single-fa~il, residence; one cottage The site is bordered by sfngTe-famil, residences on t~e north, east and sout~. San franclsQuitn Creek is to the WEst, across Palo Alto Awenue. The existing hou~ on this site .as cor.structed around 19C14. The structllre it the rear (If the propert1 originalTJ served is t~e garage for the residenc.e. At some unk.nclWTl time~ the garage YaS converted l~tm I cQttage. A liter additfon increilst!'d Ue size (If the cottage to 1,000 square feet. There are ~c records of anJ per.its for t~e <onversion or the additfon. On JuT, 31, 1990. the Cit] "anager held I public 'flearing to conslder a reqlJest b,.';' the appl icant for I ~ouse ~ving per.mit for mowing t~e Category I[ llstoric ~ouse ilt S4S Forest Avenue to this ~ite. The C1tJ ~an~er will take action OD the permit following the Plann1~g Commission an~ Cit1 Council actions on the parcel map and variance requests. The applicatfon was deemed complete &n August 20, 1990. The 'lanning Commission must ~o1d I hearing on the applic.atfon b,.';' October 9. 1990. The tit] Council must a~t on the applic.ation 'WiUdl 30 d.ays of Ue fTa~nir.g (omrnission actfon. 'il/90 Page 2 • , ) • -" Enviro~ment.llm!ld. Assessment; o AHALlili-____ _ PROJfCl [)[SCR JPlION o An I~itfil Study recommending adoption of ~ Negative Declaration has been prepared for t~ls project. No significant i~pacts ~ere ideotified. A copy of the laili.! Study ,nd Neg.ti,. Dec,,'ation is attached (90-EIA-41). The project iDvolves dividing in existing 14,245 sq.ft. lot imtG two single fa~il, parcels. T~e application 11so includes I reQuest for exceptions to allov lot widths less than t~e 60 feet normall, required. ~ot 1 is proposed to be 1~352 square feet irii size, 'W;U a lot width. of 56 feet. Lot 2 is proposed tD be 6,893 square feet in size, ~th a lot widt~ of 52 feet. A (ategorl II .1storfc residence is proposed to be moved DntQ tot 1 from its present location at S45 focest Awenue~ The existing cottage woald be removed. and i Dew garage for the ~istorft bome constr~cted in its plate. T~e eXlsting siegle-famil, residence and carport would be retained on lot 2. As i res~lt ~f the lot split. the relocated ~f5toric structure on tot I would ~ncrQa(h iotl the daylight Flane il both side yards, and exceed allowed floor area. The eXlsting ho~se to remai. OD tot 2 woald exceed allowed floor area 00 this s~aller lot. Tne existing carport would also encroa(~ into the side yard daylight Flane for accessory structures. The applicant ~as applfed for ~ariances for both properties, and a deta1led discw$sion of these requests is prClllided beloit. BAC~GROOND T~is applicatfo~ is the resalt of efforts to save a Category 11 'lstorlc Que~n Anne residence located at 545 forest Avenue. A subdiwisioc applfcation tm allow teQ ~ondomillug lots on t~e forest Avenue site is currentl, being processed_ The 'istoric residence is sllted t~ be demolished unless it can be moved tl a~other sit~ prior to the start of construction of the ten-unit developme~t. The owner of the prQpertJ originally applied fer a demolition permit ia No~ember of 1989. The Historic Resources Board consfdered the request and recommended te the CounCil that demolition be delayed for one year. 1m order to allow time for a new location to be found for He ho~se. t~. Council, .t their .eeting of December II, 1989, voted t. deliY the demolitloD for 8 aont~s. Jhe demolitioo moratorium expired August l]~ 19~D; however~ the propertT owner ~as ~ot yet applfed for a demolition permit and ma, not do so until t~e tentative map. currentl, i. process. is approved and a b~jlding permit for tht multiple·famll, prlject is lssued_ 4npalo.sr Ijt 9/7/90 Poge 3 • '\ , • .--- r \ ..J : , I , I l "!' .. I j - o o ISSUES Of CONC[R~ lot Width £~ceDtfQ"s The applicant is requesting an except fan to the normall1 required lot ~dth cf DO (eet f~ order to relocate a signlficant histo~ic residence wh;c~ will otherwise be demolished. Staff bel;e~es that enabling th~ historic bouse to be moved to I permanent site and rest~red to ~se as a single·fa~il, residence il i neighborbood cf other alder, noncomplying structures is an appro~riate reason to grant an exception. furthermnre, jf the propertJ is subdivided, the resulting lots would be of c~~parable size and bave comparab1e lot widths to the lIajaritl gf lots fa the surrounding A.·I a!"d rt-2 r.eighborhoods (see location lIap). Tne eXlsting ~ouse to be retained and t~e historic structure to be relocated would alsD be comparable to t~! surrounding neighborhood b~th il ter~s cf overall size and fa relation tn thefr lot slze. The applicant is proposing to remove two pepper trees and seven frult trees i~ order to accommodate moving the .istorfc house onto t~e site. A large fir tree will also require substantial trlmmi~g of t~e lower branches. Staff has inc7uded a condition ~f approval that an arborist be present during ,the tree trimming and ,la(~nt of the bouse tm he1p ensure the continued ~ealth If t~e tree~ As outl ined 11 the lttadled environmental assessment .. a subshnth,l amount of tree trimming .nl1 be required along the bouse moving route. The C1tJ I 5 Arborist and Urban forester have determined t~at approximately 47 trees ~11 Deed to be trimmed to allow passage of the bouse sectio-ns. WhiTe trilTlTling tree lfmbs is not usuall~ detrimental to a tree, there is a possibilit, that ~veral trees could ~ lost due to current stress fr~m i11ness. d~ought and PQtential stress If ~ev growt~ fa11owiog trimming. Of partie.lar concerw are two trees located at the <orner of Waverley Stre~t and Palo Alto Avenue~ A coast live oal (i~corr~(tl, fdeDt~ffed in tne environmentil assessment as a hall, oai] and an ailing chestnut will require severe p~unio9 and may never retwrl to th~ir e)lstfcg size and s~ape. Staff recommends t~at a certified arborist be present during all tree trimming and t~e act~al ~ove to ensure proper trimmlng and .iaimal damage to t~ese trees. Additionall" the applicant s~ould be required to post a bond to repleee any trees lost as a res~lt ~r the move. Sewec.(:onnc( t fon There is no sewer mail located 1m Palo Alto Avenue. The eXisting ho~se is connected to tfle sewer syste'll b)' a latenl running Htcug1l the propertJ directls to tbe rear, Otlt t~ the mail il Rutn~en Avenue. (It is ~ot c1!ar ~hether t~ere is a recorded easement for this lateral~) The prelfminar)' parcel map indicates an easement across lot 2 f~ order to allo~ the ~istorjc bou~ on lot ] t~ Ife int~ this existing Jateril. Ho~ever. thE Utilities Department does not illow t~o ~ouses to utilize th~ same lateral. ~parite 412pal0.sr ljt .. '/7/90 Page C , .;.' I .~ I r t f' , / .. \ I , , \ .\ I; ., --1," . i • , ! - o o connections ~rt required for eac~ house. The options available t~ the applicant include placing ~ new literal to Ruthwe~ Avenue through one of the two lots la the rear of t~is propertJ. or constructing apprQ.fmatel, 160 feet of new sewer ~ii. rl Palo Alt~ Avenue. connecting with the elisting se~er line it Vaver7ey Street. [I order to place I new latera' to Ruthven Avenue, the applicant would need to obtaia an easement from one of the propert, owners to the rear~ Since iRstal1ing i Dew lateral would re~uire lrenc~ing. it is unlitel~ t~at an eiseme~t can be obtained. WARIANCE REQUESTS l.otmt. Historic HoyS{ Oaylfg~t 'lane; The placement of the historic structure on t~t ] creates the need for i warianee t~ allow encroachmen~ imto t~e daylight plane. fhe house vi11 encroach i~to tbe side ,ar~ dallight plane along t~e newl, created north propertJ line (tlosest to the eJisting ~o~se tl remaia O~ Lot 2) b1 11.S feet for ~ distance Qf 42.5 feet. At t~e sout~ propert¥ line (adja<ent to t~e rear of t~e ~arcel Jocated at 101 Wa~erley Street), there ~;ll be a minor daylig~t ,lane encroac~ment of I foot for I distance of 2.25 feet. Staff supports the applicanl's variance request for these daylight plane encroachmeRts becau>e 1J the1 'Would be difffclIlt to avoid '!IlveR! the design Qf the existing lIistoric bQu~~ ~thout physicallJ altering t~e design af the house; and 2) the area Gf greatest encroachment is adjacent to the existing house to remail on Let 2. so otner adjacent ~eignbor5 vould be minimall, i~pacted by these encroachments. Jhe extent of the encroachments are illustrated on sheets A-J and A-3 af the rarian(~ pla~s for tot 1. floor Area: Jhe ~a~i~~ floor are~ allowed for Lot t is 2~81B square feet. T~e a~plfcant is proposing t~ mate some ~difications to the structure in order tQ facilitate jts use as a single-familJ home. The propo~ed modifications ta eliminate t~e separat~ living areas \~sfde the house ~11 decrei~ floor area due to t~e removal of a previous stairway addition. Increa~d ftoor area resBlts fro~ the addition of I basement area and a detached garage. These additions .il. result 11 t~tal floor area of approximatelJ 1,910 square feet~ 92 square feet more t~an allowed. Staff believes t~is excess floor area ca~ easily be eliminated by either removing the wind~wells to the basement a~ei [125 square feet of the basement area is counted toward f100r area due to the inclusion of t~e window wells}. or by reducing t~e s;ze of the garage. I~ order to avoid the ~eed for ~ yariance to allow exceS$ floor area. the applicant has agreed to reduce the size If t~e proposed garage sa that t~e floor ~rea ~l' not exceed the maximum. A £onditioD ~f approval has beeq include~ requiring l~e applicant t~ revfse the ,lans and reduce the amount (If floor arei prior to being issued .. buildIng pe~lt for the new fo~ndatfan or garage. Darli.ght 'lane: Due te t~e creation lIf .. new lot line direct1J adjacent til t~e eXlstlog carport to remai. on lot 2. this str~cture will encroac' l~t~ t~e 422p.lo.sT Ijt 9J1J~O Page 5 • " "'~- -~\ j < -~.':: > -~ ':' c.._ , ,,~. , I I ., ~ I '~ I o o 5i~e yard d~lf9~t ,lane for accessory structur~s by 1.5 feet for a distance or 23 feet. fl2Qrn_Area: As .. re-SIIlt of the proposed lot split. t~e ell:isting house w{luld ~a~~ floor ire~ 11 ~xceS$ of that allowed for th~ ~ew. smaller lot~ A total af 2,955 square feet Df floor area would be ill~wed. The existing ~ouse contiias .,778-squi.re feet of floor area (including that pnrtiol'l gf the ba~~ment arei wbic~ bai c1earance of 7 feet or greater), l,a21 square feet ~re than allowed. A good deal of the excess floor aTea i~ due to the basement and filis~ed atlic areas, so the house dces not appear is farge as the floor area numbers impiJ. Staff believes this size and stJte of house on a lot of this size is comparable to other homes i~ t~is neig~borhood, ~nd that granting of the yariance ~ould not impact the neighboring propertieS4 ~ECOPV1(ND~T10~,---___________ _ St~fr recommends t~at the Planning C~mmission recommend that tne Cit! Coyncil: I) 2) Approve the preliminary map w;t~ exceptions for Tot width; Approve the ~ariance request fo~ lot I (~lstoric hou>e) t~ allow daJlight plane encroathments of 13.5 feet for a distance of 42.S at t~e north ~ropertJ 1ine t and 1 foot for a distance of 2.2S feet it the south propertJ line; and 3} Approve the ~ariance request for tot 2 (ex~sting bou>e) tc allow ],8~3 s~uare feet of floor area 11 extess of t~at allowed, and a da11ig~t ~lane encroac~me~t fo~ the <arport of I.S feet for a distance of 23 feet at t~e sout_ propertJ line~ These approvals are subject to the f01To';ng findlDgs and conditions of approval: 9reli~i~ary Parcel ~ap findjngs J. There are special circumstances or (onditions affecting the propertJ, in that the.<reatfon of the new lot will allow the relocation of I Category II ~istori' structure on the site. which wou1d otherwise be lost ta demolition and. f~rtherl the existing parcel is across from I cre~t il an area gf irregular lotting patterAs and wit~i~ a hTock ~ere SO foot fot widths are common; z_ The e~ceptions for lot w;dt~ .re necessary for the preservatfoD and enjoyment ~f i substantial p~o~ert1 right of the applfcant. im tkat t~e e.ist\~g parcel is over t.o times larger t~an the rpquired .i.imu~1 an~ is substant,allJ larger t~an other 1-1 and 1-2 l~ts 1m the surrounding neighborhood, and t~e ~arcel could accommodate i S91it and remaia consistent wit~ D~ig~b~rbood c~aracter; 4Z2palo.sr Jjt 9/7/90 Page 6 o. \ • :.~> ~~t> :..c-". I i "- '. -' . ~,' .... -. o ). The granting of the exceptio~ wlll not be detrimental t~ the public welfare or t.Jurious to other property f. the territory in whic' the prDpertJ fs situated. f~ t~at eac~ of the new lots will be comparable i~ wfdt~ and size tD other nearby lots, and both the exist\~g rfslde~ce and the 'lst<lt'fc structure to be relocated tet the s; te are consBtent and compat;ble with ~ther alder ~nmes il the neighborhood; 4. The grantf~g of t~e exceptions for lot widt~ will not Ylo1ate the reQuirements. goals. policies or spirit of t~e Zoning Crdi~ance, the Subdi.ision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or any other law. im that no substanda~ lots will be <reated, each lot vi1l prowide i unit Qf lInusing, will -reflect the general lot widths in the at'ea and will provide greater lot depth and area t~an no~a'T, required; s. The project, as proposed. will not ~ave i significant impact on the pbyslcil environment~ i. that the proj~tt is of small scale whic~ will not generate substantial 'ls~al or traffic impacts; 6_ [0 «cordonc. with Palo Alto Municipal Code lPAHC) Sectioo 21.12.090lb). the proposed subdivfston, as conditioned together vit~ th& proviston for its design and fmprovement. complies and is conSlstent yith the provisions gf t~e PAM( and stlte law, including Sections 66473.5 and 66474 af t~. Government Coa., f. t~ot t~. sit. is p~ysic.ll, suitable and loned for t~e type of densitJ ~f the proposed development and there are no conflicts with public easements. Yuiante fIndings, lot 1 -lilistorlc House t. There are excep'tional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable tD the property i~uolved that do not ippl, generally to property f~ the same dlstrict. il t~at the nefghborho~ contaiAS ~any resideDces constructed im the earl, IgOa~s which do oat meet curre~t zoniog requireme~ts and, the parcel is located across fro~ San francisquito Creek on a somewhat isolated street ~here irregularlJ s~a~ed l~ts and ~nncomplying structures are (ornmon. 2. 1_ The granting of the appl;(ation is necessar~ fer the preservation and enjoyment of I substantial propert~ right of tn! applicant, and to preve~t unreasonab1e property loss or unnecessary ~ards~ip fA t~at the rropo~ed residence fs i Cat!gory !] 'lstorfc strutture. It (oald not be ~odjfled ta fit standard loning requirements on i standard R-J lot (60 feet by 100 f.et) wit~out substantial modification and siminution of its 'istoric nlue~ The grantiDg Gf the application ~ll not be detrimental or injurious to propert, Dr imprQ~~ents i. t~e fief.it} and will not be detrimental to t~e public ~eilth~ safetl, general welfare. or conuenience, i. that the size ~f the ~o~ and the size of the Tot ire general1, similar t~ other homes and lots i. the immediite ~fcillt,. The on1, substantive daylfght plane encroac~ment occurs on the north side of propos~d lot I •• here the existing resfde~ce on lot 2 mafntai.s a 16-foot setb~(k, considerabl, i~ ex~ess of the typfcal six foot side ,.rd. 411pah "sr Ijt 9/7/90 Page 1 • \ ! r • '. -). .. ~ ; ~:';': I' •• ' '~ .. • J ... ; " i I 1 , .1 . . , , . o I. There Ire exce,ptional Of' extraordinar), circums.tancE'S Of' conditions .applicable to the property invohed Hat do root ,apply g€n~rall, to property i. the same dlstrlct. la t~at the neighborhood contaias ~any residences constructed in the earl} 1900's ~hic~ do ~ot meet c~rrent loning reQufrements and, the parcel is locat~d across from San frantisqulto Creek on a somew~at isolated street where irregularl, shaped lots and noncomplying structures are <ommon. 2. The grantfDg of the application is necessary for the preservatfon and e~joymeDt of I substant1il property right of the applicant~ and to ~revent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary harctsbip beca~se the e~isting bome is designed on a four-foot pedestal foundationJ 1m c~aracter wit' ether residences constructed 1. that period and fa the surroundi~g neighborhood. rt could be made to comply w;t~ cyrrent loniog b~ lowering the pedestal one foot, and sljghtlJ modi fling the attic are~; bowever, these modifications would diminlsn the arc.;t~cturil integrltJ Qf t~e structure. 1. The granting of the application ~ll not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements im the vicfnlt, and wili not be ~etrimental to tne public bealth, safety, general welfare. or conwenjenc~, il that the s;ze &f the bome and the size of the lot are generall, similar t~ other bomes and lots i. the i~diate wiciaitl~ and the residence and carport ~ll not <nange fro~ their eXlstfng status. tQNDlTIl!f!S'-___________ _ I. The iistorfc structure s~all be moved te the site prior to recordation of i ff"al map. However, no fi"al i~spect~on, utility connections Dr occupancy shall be granted until the final map is recorded. A building perwit ~ay be issued for t~e new foundatron and garage prior to recordation of t~e fi~al map, provided a prop~rt1 survey. ensuring pro(ler locaticn flf the ne .. structtJres. is submitted 'III.'ith Ue flullding permit applftitfon. The buildi~g permit s~alJ not b~ issued until the existing cottage is remo~ed. 2. Prior to obtaiafng ~ building permit. the subdivider ~hall submit ~ fl"al grading and drainage p1an to tne satisfaction of the Public Worls Depaltment. S~rface drainage to the street is ~ot permitted. 1. l~e subdiYlder s~all be responsible fo~ iAstalling ~11 storm drainage in~ water fmprovements and ~r~fces. including any re~uired off·sife opgrades. For sewer servlce to Let 1, the applicant shall Elther obtaia an ei~ment satisfactory tc th~ tit1 Attorney snd i~stall i ~ew sewer lateral t~ Ruthvea Street~ or s~al1 i~still I new sewer mail on Palo Alte Avenue. The subdi~ider shall be responsible for installing the se~er mai~, to t~e specifications and satisfaction ef tne Utilities Department. All these improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the (ft] Attorney. 422~alo.sr ljt ~/7/9Q 'age B • , ~L. , -- >. - 4. 6. , " .• f ." .. . o o The suhdivider shall work w,t~ the Utilities Department tG determir.e ill ~t\tit, design and capacity requ;reme~ts including water~ sewer. gas, el{'ctric. phone and <able hci1ities~ All nell constl"uction s",l1 tla'v'e electric. telephone and cable ser~i(e underground. All ~til;t1 plans s~a'l be apprQved by the Utllities and ~ater~ Gas and Sewer Departments before the fi~al ~ap is ~ecorded~ A permit s~al! be obtained fro~ the Public Works Dep~rt~~t fer constr~tion work in the public right-or-way_ The subdiwide T s~a'l design a~d i~stall all electrical utilities ;! accorda~ce ~;t~ PaID Alt~ standards, includiDQ underground utilities to the satisfactio~ of the light and Power Di,ision. All eTectTical ~lans s~al1 be approved by the light and Power 0;wisl0" before the final Map is ree Grded ~ J. All constructfoD aetiwlties s~all be subject to compliance ~th the provisions of t~e CitJ of Pal~ Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10 PAMC}. 8. TQ reduce dust levels during construction it shall be required that exposed eart. surfaces be watered frequently, during the lite ~orllng and t~e end mf the daJ~ w1t~ frequency mf ~atering increasing on .rtody days. All streets and ~aul routes shall be cleaned daily. Spillage resnlting from ~aoling operations along ~r across any puhlic o~ prfrate propertJ s~all be removed fmmediatel} and paid for by the cnntra<tor. Oust nuisances originating fro~ t~e <antrictGr~s operitions> either hsi"de or outside the r;'g'ht·of-wa.y. stl"l1 be <ontrcl1ed it the contractor's expense. !. A certified arborist snal1 be present during all tree trimming activHies boUl 00 and off tlle site. The arborist -sl'\all also 'Supenise the move of the bo~se t~ e~sure additional trimming is done properl,~ 10_ The i.a publfc street trees ind two private trees to be removed as part of t~e ~oase ~ving s~al' be replated by the appliccnt to the 5atisf~ction of the (it, Arborfst~ It. If, ia He ophion (If the City Arbori5t~ any trees ... rimmed to accorrmodate tf'le move must he removed due ta-;njur1 Ilr deaH caused by the move or tfle trilTJUi n9 ~ the app 1 f c ant shall be re'lu i red to replace sucl trees to the satisfaction ~f the Cit1 Arborist The repla(eme~t of trees. s"a11 be guaranteed" b.)' bond 0.(' other for~ of 'Tuarant:.!e acceptable to the City Attornel~ and of an amount acceptable t~ the (;t, Arborist. 12_ Ttle "lstorlc hotJse slla11 be restored to lise i.S it: sillg1e-famll1 residence. A. building permit for hterlor l1odHfci.':ions h the 'home to elimini.te llultip1e titc.hens ~nd s-epafite liwing qua,"ten. s"'a11 be Dbtained prior to filing the final lIap. '(22p~To.sr lit 9j7/90 Page 9 • \ • , \ \ " , • \ -.: ," / "~'""-'='-'-""-'-""'~~,'-'.-'-"-~ _'_' __ t~~-"c ___ ,;,.._.;., ... ,_,. ___ • .;"., __ .. ....,,=-__ ,c .......... ___ .... ...:. • .;,:;._ ...:: ____ ,\.:. ..... o o U. Pdol'" ta issuance of i building ,permit (or i foundat ion or garage, the ipplicAnt s~a'l revise t~e plans for lot] to reduce tne floor area to ~et zoning requirements. loeltion Map [nvironmental Assessment (90-EI4-41) l~tters from applicant tm support of wariance findings. dated JU1, ll~ )990 Prelfmfnar1 PaTcel Map Flans ltommiss;on and Council members onl,) 'arianee plans for lot I, Historic House (Commission and (auneil m€mbeTs onl,) 'ariance ,lans for lot 2, Existing Rouse (Commission and Council members on1J) COPIES S£IIT TO Ristor]c Resources Board ~embers Timot~J 0_ Jriiler, 394 University Avenue, '300, P.l. Alto, C~ 94301 Moyer AssO<lites Art'itects, ClO Sherman Awenue, Palo Alto. (~ 94306 Robert Oneto, HKK Eng!n.ers, 1353 Oakland Road. ~an Jose, C~ 95161 ~ •• Alsma •• 1051 Ramona Str •• t. Pal. Alt., (A 94301 ~lanne and Greg Chesson, 115 Wa~er]ey Street~ Palo Alto 9 (. 94301 Kathlee. and Roger Crilg, 101 Va,erl.y Street, Pil. Alto, CA 94301 laurie Hardea, 446 R~thven Avenue. P,Ta Alto, {~ 9430] Chris Sc)iehol~. 480 falo Alt. Avenue, Pil. Alto. CA 94301 Andy 5teve.son. 12Q Vaverley Street, Pal. Alto, (A 94301 Jact Spence. Utilities Donn~ ~ilden, light and Power Dave Sandage, Public VorKs Oper.tions Gary Rauman, Public Worts Operations S~e Case, Assistant {1t1 Att~rney 42lpalo.sf" Ijt ,--. ,. -, ;::, -,-,"-"L-, "-, 9/1/90 Page 10 1.,.-_"",,,, I "-'," '-"'-:;t~~~ :' ".. "--,.,-'. ~ ('-' ,; • I .. r i f ! b , . ' . •• . , r. -""---"""":-~'_"" __ tI.'.-. . .!. ~_""!: ',." SITE lOCATION 422 PAlO AlTO IWENUE GRAP~IC .iTT~CHMEIT 10 STAfF REPORT PROJEtr: PARC£",-,.!AP ____________ _ --1 ------'7-,----,-_~. __ . __ "'-_._"\.,.' ". ,. __ 'L , \ NORTH • f I I • , , I I \ , \ , ,~ ;. ....., .. -. -.~ . -,.,- ":'- ," . ',' \. -.-- /~ " ~ .. ~ . I , t , - . l, ....... o o I!IXIRONllfNTAL ASSESSMfNT Project Des<-riptionjTitle: Subdi't'lsio!l to create_ bo'O si_~ __ ~.J~ ' __ f~Il1J~_ "~~..r!_t~,=.r!~is now ooly one. ___ ~ ___ ~ ___ ~ __ ~ ______ _ Location/Address: 42l Palo Alto Avenue PifO A]to, CA __ .~'-.-.. ~~~~_-==--=~_ Sponsorfng Agenc1/Applicant: Address and: Telepnone of JI.pplicant: ~~_V~ __ i..~er:sitl Avenue..,L !~."O,,-O __ _ ___ .,--,P."a-"lo,-AHo, (A 94~O_1 _. _._. __ • __ Application fof'; f'arcell1_~j) _____ :~ .. H_~ exception to a.llow reduced Tot "'i...~ {e.g_. zoning <llange, stJbd;~ision of propert,. arc.hitec.tIJ":-;ijY re\,/;e .... use permil} 8d>ed upon review of the project files .. He undersigned memuer of He Planning Departrne~t has <onc1uded: jJl ~·~9~~i\f~~Qec1...!.ration: The pr0jec.t ~as no signiflcant er1'.lirC1nmental impact. No hnTironmental Impact Repo:rt is required~ The .reasons for it NegaHve Ded aration: are: ia t~e attached illliTial st~_1y~~_C!~~ ___ oL"prCljec.t a-c U Of]_ ) ~ __ iva i lab 1 e fQ·r re \1,1 ew at tne Pa 1 0 ,A·l.t~ _____ ~J_~_l1_£lJ.~.9 ____ P.~ P __ <i_'!:_!_JTl_~.rJ_t __ L-______ . _ J~(:~!~<! _0..!1 ___ ~_~_~ fifth ___ f~~or at City Hal L 2~O Haml1t(\" ____ ~y.~_n~_~ __ ... _p<1I~_}·lt~, CA 1..-( The project may flave a sfgl1if;(ant !nllironmental impact.. An Enwironmental lmpa<t K(~port will be pre'pared~ Jllanr.ing [lep.Lrtmect Official: __ ~~~'-I:.' J.)'t(~fL:"'" _ ................................... . nann; og Director; 2t&~'k·Sc "-,..,['" !fate: _. 'l"/l :/1.1£. __ Jhe prQject has been appro\,/ed'. fbe project ~as beeQ denied~ Date: Date: file No. ~o [[A-II 1 "-.• =----'''' ... _---,-..;.. • ., .. - o o f_NVlRONM<Nl~L IlOCUKEN1S -PAUl l\l TO ElA-2. L I J _ ! I L IV_ 1~111Al STUO~I,2 Project lit rejAddress:_~",,-o lot subdl .. i_~J.Q_t'lf.222.!J~..lt.iL_Av!:!~_~_~ _____ _ P'r-oject Des.crlption: Dhidem_one parcel wil~--.!I'\ __ ex;st!E.9 siogle- family llome illta two 10ts_ A. 'i<:t()ria_~_ b.t>me 15 proposed to);.!.2".ove-d Q:~!E ..the Deli lot-____________ _ --------- [nvlr-onmentoll Sett lng:~a~_ro:timate11 14.00Q.:..!9..uare-(oot.)evel lot. '115!.h_.!p"p'rQ1imateh 4J..~.9_Q sqiJire-feet oJ. structures con3i~tj~ ____ ,?f one ~i.!![l __ ~fi'1n, resiJence, one ctl~tage and; gar-agl!'. T~ cottage fs P_~OYE!:_UC be demoHshed._Jhe site is bcrder.ed.on the 'lie-Sot by San .fr:anc(s.guih Creek (across PalD AJ tfl A..,_en~ and bw single_-fa~ __ T._~_ !'~~~ __ ~ tne rema5ltlt'lg three s;'d_es ___ ~ _____ _ (n~lronmentll Impact Checklist {Explanation of all ~1es~ answers ~re i~ $ecUoo r) f. {art.. ~il1 the proposal reselt im: ~. OnstabTe earth conditions or changes 1ft geo1ogic substructur~s? b. Dlsruptions, dfspl~cements. compaction or ov!r(overing of the sotl? c. C~a~ge i. topograph, or ground surface relief (eatures? d. fhe destru<tlon, covering or modifica tion of any unique geologic or pbys;tal f-eltures:? e. Any increase ,ft wind or water eraslon of soils. either on or off the 5;te? f~ Exposure Qf people or propert1 to geologtc ~az.ras suc~ as earthqua~e~. landslides. mudslides, g~ound failure. or similar ~alirds? g. {hanges i. siltat;co~ dep~sltion. or erosion wb;c~ may modify the c~annel of ~ river or the bed of a bay or i.ltt? I 1 lAdapted fro~ Appendfx " CalifDrBia Guidelines for ImpTement2tion ~f CCQA, December 14, 1976. 2U~da!'d May, 1geZ; Jun., 1ge3 HA90~h BH 90-fl~-41 I '. o o 2. "1r .... ill the proposal f'tsltlt ill: I. Substantii' itr e~iS5:ons or deteriora tio~ of ambfent air qualitJ? b. The creatioc of object;onabT! ardors? c. Alt!ration of air movement~ moisture temperature. or an, c~ange fa climate. either 10ca1', or re9io~al? 1. ~~~. Vil1 the proposal res~lt ;R; i. Changes 1m absorption rates, dri;~age patterRS~ or the rate and amount of surface ~ater ru~off? h. Alterations to the ~oyrse or flow of flood waters? c. Oisc~arge into surfae! ~ters. or 1. any alteratfon of surface water qualit!s iacluding b~t not li~ited to temperature. dissolved Dxyge~ Dr turbidity? d. ATteratfon of the direction O~ rate of flow of gro~nd ~aters? e. Exposure Qf people or property to water related ~az~rd$ sue' ~s flQoding Q~ tidal -waves? f. C~ange;1 the Quantit1 ~f ground waters, etther·throu9~ direct ~dditians O~ with drawals, O~ through jmterc!ptfons of an ~quifer by <yt~ or ex<a~~t;ons? (. flant lift. ~111 the proposal result ;.: HA904!> RH i. Change i'a the df~ersH1 of species, or ._.!... number of any species of plants (includ- in9 trees. s~rubs. grass. crops~ eitro- fiori: and aquatic Flints}? b. Aeduction of the numbers of any unlQue~ rare Or endangered species of plants1 c. htrodlJction of ne-w species of p1ants f~to an area. or ,. I barrier to the normal rep1enishment of existing specfes? d. ~eductlon i~ acreage of any agTicylturll crc~? "iIII ...... r---.-,-_· ---~.----- '-~ I J X .!... 90-E1A-41 l • \ , • t o· • ~ ~ ~ - ,;.~ ., - s. 6_ 1. B. 9. , . ~ <) ~imal life. Will the p~oposal res~Tt '111 ~ .. Change fn t~e di~ersit1 ~r species, or cf any species Qf animals (birds. l.od antmaTs including reptiles. fis~ .od shell ffsb. be~t~ic organisms. insects ~r mlcrof~uni)1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unfque. rire or ~ndaDgered species of animals? c . I~troduction of ne~ species of anfmals feto an area~ or resttlt in i barrier to the ~f9ration or r.o~eme~t of animals? d. Oeteriorition life habitat? ;1:1 uistfng fis~ or wiTd- .N-fl ; S~. ~ill t~e proposal result in: ,-Increases i; existlog noise 1evels? ~. [Kposure of people h severe noise levels? llght aod Glare. Will the ~ro~0 .. 1 produce ne~ lIi9~t glare? land Use. Will the propos.l ro,.11 hi I subsIaii1:'hl i' teration of the present or ~lanned land use Qf an are.a?- ~1!~qy~atuT.il _~esourceL \,i11 t~e proposal resalt fI; I. Use of s~bstanti.al amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantiil increase il demand upon eJ(isting SOlJrces of energy, Dr require the development ~f new so~rces Dr energy? <:. [ncruse 11 the rate of ~se of any natural resources~ ~. Substantiil depletion af any nOnrenew able ~atural resolJrce? ]0. ~)slt of Upset. Does the proposal iDvolve I: risk of a~ ex~1osion Dr the release of haz.ardous substances {including~ but not Hrcited' h. lil. pesticides. cl'lemicolls or radliiltion) fl tne event cf an .accident 0,1' ups.et? 0 ItS ..!.. I\A!~ NO ..!.. ..!.. ..!.. ..!.. I I ..!.. 90-£1.1.-41 l • . ') , ~ . f~_»'_ ~ ~~-~', '"-."; ; -'. , .<-' , ., .. "'. • I . " .• ' -.. ,. _, , __ ~ " i " . i ~\ :-~ ~,;;~\ "",->".., • '~Iti~:" , >':~4ot:'L ' . . ,', ' -'",,' ~;.:r , _ -, . " ~., .. :;j:-~~.::';;;}~:-';_';~~~~~;::;;;';:;:-L,"';.:,..:,_..,;.;;..;.. ....... __ , ... ""'_"-~.,;~-~~_:;,~~~.;!!~~1t''f~ai!A-_;~~~j o 0 r 1. ~_0R.!!.L~ll.~vs i n9. !J~ ~ 'fBf NO i. Wtl1 the ~roposal alter the 1ocatfon. I ~istributIQn. density, or 9rowt~ rate ~f the ~uman population of a~ araa? b, Will the propos.l effect •• isting -!- hausi"9, D~ create i demand fo~ addi- lional ?lousing? i2. Transp(lrtaHo"/(irc~J __ ~..1io". Will the proposal reSI11t Ss: i. Seneratic" of $u~tantiaT addit;onal v!~ic~lir ~ove~nt? b. {ffeets on existing ~ariing facilities, or demand for ne~ parking? c. Alterations to present patter~s of cfrcHlation or mo~ement cf people and/ or gooos? d. [ncrelse la traffic hazards to motor veblcles~ ~lcyclists or ped~strlans? 13. PubliC Serylci!.s. -Will tlle proposal have an effect upon. Dr result ia a need for new or .1tt~Ed governmental service~ 1m an, of the following are~s: i. Fire protectl0n? b. Police protection? c. ScJ1ooh? d. Parts or ather recreational facilities? e. ~aintenance of public fac;lities~ including roaas? f. Ot~er governme~t~l services? u. lftiHties. V111 the proposal rest:lTt in iI need for new systems~ or s~bstant;al alterations to th~ f.llow;og utilities: HA504h BH l. Power Dr ~atural gas? b. Communications systems? -!- ,L 1 .1_ L L J L 90-flA-U 4 • 1 :j !' ~ - 0 c. Wattr~ d. Sewer or s.ept ic tank? o. Ston wlter driilinag!? f. S.alid wast! and disposal? 15. Human ReiH .... 1Iill the proposal re5al! iI: .. Creiiltfon of any ~ealth ~azard aT potenti.l health ~az'Td (ex<luding mental he.lth)? b. Exposure of people tc potenthl health "azard's? I •. A~st~eti(s. Will the ~roposal res~lt it t~~ obstruction of any ~cEgic vista OT view ope~ to tl'le lIublic. Of" will the proposal re5IJH i. tne creatron ~f an aestheticall~ offensi~e site ope~ to public view? 11. Recreation. Wi 11 the proposal res~lt i" an 1iTipacr--upon the qualHy or quantitJ of elfist- fog recreational opportunities? lB. C.ltuTiI ResotJrces _ HA904h All •• b. c. d. 1Iill the proposa 1 res~Tt 1a the altera- tion of/or the destructfon of a prenlstorlc or ~istoric arcnaeoTogiciill site? 1Iill the proposal resalt ia adver-se physi<ll or aestt.etic effects to a prehistoric or bistoTic build;o~, structure; , or object? Does t~e proposal lIave the potential t~ <auses ~ physical change ~hic~ ~o~ld ,affect unique cul'tul"'oiI1 vilt1es? 1Ii 11 tlle proposal restrict existing rel fgious or sacred IIses wi tUn the potentia.l impact area? 0 VI ~ Mil VI,.! ..!.. ..!.. NO X ..!.. ..!.. ..!.. X ..!.. .L I I - I ..!.. 90·lIAU S • < .. ~--~?""' " ~<. ~. '";/',:--. ". ~:'".'~:";'c'. '" ..; t: , I I , -. . . ~ . f H ( I , r , r r ! t t t I r t • I f I r - "' . "," ,/ o o 19. Manda~indin95_.Qf~J.li~ __ ~_Qce~ i. Does the project ~ave the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantilll, reduce tne habitat of a fis~ or wl1dllfe species, (aus! a f;s~ or vildlffe population to drop below self-sustaining 1evels. threate~ to eliminate a plant or ar.imal community. reduce the number Qf restrict the rang! of I rare or endangered plant or a~imal or . eHalif'lite important examples of the-major pe~jo~s of CalifarDli history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potenthl h ac~jev! short-t~rm. to the disadvantage (If long-term. enll'ironmental goal s. (.It s~~rt-term impact OD the environment is one wblch occurs i~ a relatively brief. definitive period of tfme while long-term impacts ~ill endure vell into the future.] c. Does the preject ~avt impacts wblc~ are fndlwfduall, ll~ited, but cumulativels considerable? (A preje,t nay impact on two or more separate resources ~~ere t~e impact an each resource is relattvely small. but ~ere the effect of the total of tnose impatts on the envirnnment is sign; ficant.) d. Does the pr~ject ~ave e~v;ronmental effects ~iCA ~;11 ,ause s~bstant'il advErse effects on ~uman beings~ either ~frect11 Dr indirectly? ,. Exp1anatfon Df ·yts· answers il environmental checklist. f1A9041a BII 90· [[ .... 41 6 • - , ~ , t • I 4 I I - .-_. .. ',.- o o w. EXPLANATION Of ·YES· AASW1'RS I~ ENVI~DNMENTAl C~ECKlIST l~_J_til_.Jliart~~ The ]ocition of a r.ew sfngle famil, resfd'ence on the site will disrupt sit! soils and will increase the amount of im,penliou5 surface aru en the lot. A III 1 1 mUll amount of grading 'Will tle required to construct iI nco. foundation (or the strocture . • 115 site iJ, located with ill • seismic-area: of 1l0deriltE: risk. a.nd .... '11 be subject tl wer) strong ground 5"aking fl'l the e .... ent of an earthquake. Anj [lEW construction will be slIbjec:t to the pr\Jvfsion of the mos.t current Unifcrnt Building Code. portfons of whic~ are directed at reducing se~srnic rlsk. ~.-1!l~ter. The addition of one single family home to the Tat will increase impervious surface on the site and slightl, mOdify site drai~age ~atterns. The ir,creHe irt r~r,off should r'lot lIave a significant effect ~f the areas or site dnlnage. 4. f~) Plant ljfe, The site ~as ~any trees, including 3 caks~ 3 recwoods. two lleppers anc one fir~ and numerous frwit trees. The tllO pepper trees (10" and 14- diameter), as. .. ell as 1 of the frwit trees. are proposed to be removed. The large 27" fir ~il1 be trimmed to accomm~at~ the ~~ing of the house onto the site. Since the house w111 be .cut in 'half, the w-idtFt: (If the sections to be moved will a lIIaxlmulII of 20' .. including the traUer. There is ont, l6'" of clt!arance betweeQ the propert, line and the base ~f the fir tree. so a substantlal amount of pruning of the lower limbs ma~ be required. A cert1fied arborist should be retained t~ ensure that adequate measures are take~ to protect the tree during the trimming and the ,lacement of t~e house on t~e ~ite. 1M order t~ ~ove the house from its present location to t~is site, the (it~'s Urban rOf"!ster deterained that the removal Df C trees and the trimming {)f 47 trees would be req(Jired'. Two of t~.a trees to be removed (14" Canar1 rsland Pine and 4-Caroti~a (herry) are located ia the private ~arking let directll behind the parcel froll wbicl! the house -wi 11 be mo~ed. The other ho trees to be removed incloc1e iI 12· Plagnol ia street tree on Webster Street and ii,S" liquid Amber street tree j. front cF the parcel cnt~ whic~ the bouse ~11 be mo~ed. ihe l1ajOf"itl of the street trees ..,hic" \IIouTd be trimed along the move route are on !IIaver1e, StreeL The l1aturit.J and c.anopy tlf Hese trees is mh:ed. The fllJuse will be mo~ed down the 36' vide street i~ sections no wi~er than 20' (including Ue trldler). Substar:tfal trimming of some trees w111 be needed to accolTlTlodate the house sectjons up to i maximum height of 25', f~llo~ing the trimming, tne street (anopy ~ill be sOlm!what reduced. and will take a !'lumber of years to returl to their previous canopy. f~ture additional trimmir,g will also be required t~ ~el, s~ape t~~ trees is they re-sprout new lfmhs. While trilMling tree limbs is not ~sual)1 detrlmental to a tree~ there is iI posslbilH, u,at sever.l trees could be lost due to current strBs from illness. ~rought conditions and the potential added stress of Melf grollrUJ following the trfmming_ Of partfcular (oncerJl are two trees at t~e corl1er of Palo Alto Avenu~ and' ... avedE) Street. A. He11J OaJ:: and an ailing C~estn{Jt will require sever-2 pruning and may ne .... er returlll to their e.»:ist1og size and s~ape. The Hall, Oak l!!iY a-ctuaH.7 need t" be remo .... ed to accorllJ1odate He move. and Ue Chestnut. due to its ., , 1 • -\ ~. ! L ~ f i I I ! ~ , . I· ,. , _, C·o: .... ~, .; , " - ", , , o o .... eak. condilfcl't. ma, not recover frol'll t~e stress of t~e trimmlng. A certified arbof'"ist shooTd be present durlng all trimming acthities to heip ensure the continued healt~ cf all th~ trees to be trimmed. 6. Noise. Preparation of the site and th~ move of the ho~se will result ia a temporar,)' increase in amblent nOlse levels. All construction acthiUes '~ill be subjec~ to compliance wit~ the provisions of tne C;ty~s Noise Ordinance. ll.,,_fb) Transportdiqn. The itdditioD of one single tamil, residence would create i need for parting. A ho-car garage is proposea to built on the site to accommodate paTH!"!;): for the new resi·den(e. A small amount of on-street par!dng may il1s-0 occur .. but thls is r,ot expected to hClve a sfgo1ficant impact. .1-t..-..... td:.1JH .. tl.Llitl.... Here are no se",er lines loctltec1 in Palo Alto Avenue. The exfsting parcel is served by a sewer connection which passes tnrough t~e lot to the rear tlnd connect1 to the main in Ruthven Avenue. A sewer connection for t~e new house 'WhieJt is 5atisfactory~ to the Cit, Utilities Department must be arnnged. It is 1 i telJ that the appl ieant \11111 ~a'w'e to provide a nell{ sewer f)ain ia, Palo Alta Avenue to connect w.it~ the existing sewer located at Viverley Street, approximatel, 100 feet sout~ of the site. ~(.1ttJnl Resources. The neli' lot is being cf'eated to accommodate the J't(I'oIe of a Class II .istorie structure from another site. where it ~a5 5t~eduTed to be demolfshedL Tbe "<lUSt Yilt be cut i!I half to accommodate the move . .A fOl.mdation _ill be ~onstructed on the ~ew lot. and t~e house reassemb1ed on the siteL The ~)5torlc struct~re is c~rrently in poor condition. The applicant proposes to restore and impro'ol! the house after moving it to t~is 5ite~ 2 • , f ' "-'''j ; f , r t . , , " • • <~, "~:?;> .. -" ~ ".' '" -." f·.·.' ~.- --,....,.. , ·> •. f - o 0 TRAU.ER & ASSOCIATES. INC. July 31. 1990 3.H t."Nl.v:r:&.<f.M'r "'\'&N~ SVITI: 30C PA.I.o AUO. ~Al.IPORNIA &4301'171~ 10411113:111--OeOCI Zoninq Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Haailton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94l0~ Re: 422 Palo Alto Avenue Proposed Lot 1 Gentlemen: Please consider the follo~inq circumstances in your review of our request for 21 Floor Area Ratio variance and a <Say-light plane variance {for each side) of the house to be re-Iocated to this site: 1. There are E!xceptional and extraordinary cirC1J.mstances applicable to this property. Tbe property currently has two e~istinq nonconfor.inq residences on it~ We desire to delete one of these residences and put a historically significant house on the property .. Jlaintairling the same density .. but creatinq two confocminq lots. The aqe of the re-located structure (the Forest Victorian) and style of architecture of that era are such that the home yes built vith a crib wall and attic areas which cause the hoce as it exist& and as it viII .be renovated to exceed the floor area ratio per-aitted. We wish to maintain the architectural style, and pre&ecve the st~uctuce by moving it to the pcoperty at 422 ~alo Alto Avenue. The size of the lot to be created (or this home and the restrictions inherent in the period architecture .ake it necessary for us to apply tor these variances. /'C' -'-I-_~( .. , , ' '"l , ~- • • -. - '. \ / dltiz':"~·\·~'~~~;;,-C~':~5~:J.'_~~.J_~5\! J:'~ ti __ .g;il.r.Q_~ ... , .. 'i'O: FROH: OATE: liE: o ZonIng Administrator Timothy D. Trailer July 31. 1990 422 Palo Alto Avenue Page 'Ivo o Lot 1 2. The granti1l9 of these variances is ne-;essary for the preservation of the Victorian stucture, and to insure a permanent home for it... and to prevent the loss of a rated historical building. 3. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental or inj-urloDS to the property or improvement:c;. in this 'Vicinity, and vil1 not be detrillental to the public health, safety, qeneral 'Welfare or convenience as the eIisting density remains the same and tbe Victorian home can be preserved and located in an established neighborhood of older, large houses. Thank you for your consideration. : Ilq -r ' --;:., .-, ; , " : " I ---'. 'I J ,II , 1 j~';:i~ I , , ., .: , .... Il': .. -! tel ,.;1 ~ .r.', .:,,--. - • o o TRAILER & ASSOCIATES. INC. 3fI.4 l'I'UVIl:R:--.JTY ..... ·:r-..l'fl-II!:.. ~UlT.I: 300 r .... l..Q .... I..::ro. C.t.LH"UKNI ..... aol.17l~ "'11)1 Sal...o.oa July ll. 1990 zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. Calitornia 94~Ol Re: 42:2 Palo ~lto Avenue Proposed Lot 2 Gentlellen: Please consider the following circumstances in your review of our request for a Floor Area Ratio variance for ~he existing house on this site: 1. There are exceptional And extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property~ The ~operty currently has t~o existing nonconforming residences on it. We desire to delete one of these residences and put a historically significant bouse on the property, maintaining the saDe density, but creatir19 two confo~ing lots. The age and architectural style of the existing structure are such that t~e home contains both a full basement area and significant attic area which must be calculated in the floor area ratio. We wish to maintain the existing architectural style of the home, which creates the need for the floor area ratio variance. The style of the home is in keeping with the older, established nature of the neighborhood. I ,:::','1 r. -. , I'·'.' , .... I" ~ i J ~ L I ' t;.LI ~p I ,0 f-~ 1;.'17, ,,"~ iLlI\ '~,_"':'Ll' ~~~ ~-t/-U .. ; , , "I ..J".";~ ?.- o o '1'0: toning Ad81nistrator Timotby O. Trailer JUly n. lUO FIlQM: PATE: ,22 Palo Alto Avenue Lo~ 2 RE: page Two 4~ The granting of this variance is necessary to preven~ unreasonable and unnecessary hardship on the owner of the property that deaolition/reaodeling of the existing structure would cause, p.rticularly as this request is to allow the re-location of a historically significant bu Hding to the prope.-ty. l .. The qrantinq: of thIs variance will not be dEtrimental or injurious to the property or iaproveaents in this ~icinlty. and will not b4 detr1aental to the public bealth¥ safety. general welfare ~ convenIence as the existing density remains the sa •• and the Victorian bo_e can be pr •• erved and located in an established neighborhood of older, lerge baUsle. Thank you for your consideration .. ,--"..~---~,,--.. -'L ,~,~~~,~ }' ,. ~";;- ! ;0; T-' i l;'J ... L, . f ~ I q :i 1,,,-,,.:,,,, : -~~~-~(rl-~', i ,j 0. ~:II i 19'30 I /ell, ' iti.:. ,,' -ii ~ ~ 'l:..; • "\' " ..... ~: : . - AGENDA !TEll I o 0 EXC£RPT Planning CommIssion Meeting 09/i2/90 422 PAlQ ALTO AVENUE, Applications for (I) a preliminary parcel ~ap to divide one eX1sting 1.,OOO-sq~are-foot parcel iatQ two single-fiNil] lots with exceptions for lot Width; (2J yarlances for exc~ss floor area and da.11 ;'9",t phne for the eXlsting residence and garage OD lot 2; and (3) •• riance. for daJlig~t pTane and floor arei for an existing .fstor;c residence proposed to be moved from 545 Forest Avenue oot. lot I (411 Pal. ATto Av!nue). Environmental Assessment: No significant fmpacts were determined t3 res~lt from the pr~ject, and I negative declaration has beea prepared. File Nos. 9O-PM-3, 90-1-17, 90-I-18 and 90-EIA-41. Zo.e District R·l_ Chalnnan "arsb: I have asked staff to give a brief summar, of the leg.l issued iDYolved 11 this item. Ms. Case: Chafrman Marsh ~as .sked ~e t. tilt .bout ~hat has bee. l~volyed se far. is well .s w~at you ~11 be doing tODig~t. As some Qf yoy .ay have read 11 t~e ne.spaper. the cltJ ~anager beld a hearing on Sage portfons of this application. It ~as i bearing for a relocatfon pe~it f. cQnju~ction Witk the house mewing. It 1S i rather obscure part of our code that not too many people know about~ but has now become very ~el1 known. Tbe process, briefly, 15 I two-part process iDvolwfDg t~e applicant ftlfng an applfcation for a ~QY1Dg per.it to move a ~~use. The building .ffici,l Is I. cnarge of th.t permit. r. order to get • ~oving penlit f~ t~e bu'lding offfclal~ one has tD get i relocation permit (rom the cfty ~"ager. fbe code is ~itte~ rather strangely because the mo~]ng penllt that yo~ get fro~ the building ~fffcfil iovolves 1 lot more than is fgyol~ed ~th t~e permit from the manager that act~all, requires a public ~earfDg. The ~nager is lfmited to consfdering the condition of the ~ouse. a~ the pyrpose for t~at hearing and that penait, apparentl1 fro~ t~e vay I read the code, is to eRsure that the neighbors at the ne~ loc,tion will not be stuck wit~ something that amounts to • pile of sticks. Tbe tenms ·~nl~fHl, dangerous Dr defective condition-are used. The manager dQ~S nDt ~ive an1 authoritJ Dr discretfor. to c~nsider any other effects cf that bouse. or any ot~er conditions of t~at house, is it ~ould relate t3 t~e neighborhood. The onll t_iog ~e is permitted to do is to consider whet~er the ~ouse is il such a deterforated condition t~at it would ~re.te , proble. for the new neighb<r~ood_ The .anager r.a111 ~as no author!!l with respect to the move itseTf. He buildftlg offfcfil lias th~ ·authof'it,,-one could say. to grant a "-per.it for lC~iDg the bouse. He does not reall, have any discretion, either, but what be bas t~e capability .f doing is the requiring of bonds Ind ict~al CIS~ up front te satisfy ~at ~e belfeves will take care of the risis cf the move, including the trimming of trees, damage to sfaewalts~ streets, etc. The moving perait ~as not bee~ issued by t~e building off;'i,l, ,nd will not be fssued until the 6i>eretionary approv,l process i. fi.fshed_ Jhat Includes ~at you .re doing tonight. With respect to the house moving, itself, thfs commission ~iS the purview L • -. ';.:;.." .. -; 1 .,.-~'--. 1:.~. , ~ " ~ . r , [ I ( i L· r t r . , I I i I l ~ I I I ! I I , ! \ I "-, , , .-~', I ~ •.. I l I ,j , , .< ; . 1 '. / o o oyer th.e house I1Dvfng 'WiUd'1I this process be<:ause of the nrian<:e application •. The whole purpose of the ~arrance WOQld .be to accommodate the new ~ouse aD the new lot. Obviously, ia order ta get the ho~se to the Dew lot, St ~a$ tl be mo~edJ so thp. l10vfng is certainly withlB your pu~few t~nfg~t. u~der the variance procedure. M$. Tapley: I flave some fnforllation that I received froll the cHy arborist fl regard ta the trees t~at need to be trimmed and removed. w111 ~ake some prGJections on the scree~. Tne original environmental assessment prepared for this project mentioned 47 trees that would be fn Deed of trimming. That was an estimate made about i month and i hal' ago b, the city arborJst and the urban forester. That 'Was done on i ver~ 'Worst clse sItuation, based on the iBfo~atl0n ;vailable at the time ;s to bow~de and how .fg~ the sections gf the ~ouse would be, and assuming that most of the street would be .sed to .ove the house. Sioee that time, the cltl arborlst has gone back and checked more thoroughl,. T,e list t~at you ~ave i. front Df yo~ referring to t~e numbers on the map fndicates a total of 29 trees t~at would be trimmed somewhat substanthll1~ Tbere lIa, be a few others that vould :haile minor trims or that .auld be fleKlble enough for their braocnes to .ov. out of the way as t~e bouse .a~es down the street. As noted before~ four trees are slated to be removed. Tbree af those are located 1. the priv;te ~arkfng lot immediatel, t. the rear of ~45 forest Avenue. One is the street tree at the driveway t~at enters t~at parting lot. Tnere-are three ~ther areas Qf significant tree trimming t~at have beeR ooted. Tbe first one w~uld be on lytton Avenue near the iltersectioD If l,ttan and Tasso. That would be trees '7·'14~ vbfc\ are sycamore and ~agnolia trees. _The second area would be t~e f. t~. 20Q block of WaverJel street near the park. Thes. are tre.s '15-'21 t~.t would be sub,tantl.ll, trImmed. The t~lrd are. would be at the ~orDer Qf Palo Altm Avenue and Vaverley Street ~ere there is a~ cat~ a chestnut and I liquid amber that would be severely pruned. Vith the proposed house being 20 feet wide and 25 feet 'Igh, the chestnut aod .ak tree Ilkel, would not sur.l.e. Ch;frman ~rih: Do you ~ave a sense ef the magnitude of the trim ;. the other ,laces? You bave noted that at the Palo ATto Aveoue sIte, those trees are litel, to be removed or not survive the process. What about the trees II the 200 ~lock of Vaverley across fro. the citl park? ps. Topley: The arborist di~ not ~ote that he felt any of those trees would dIe speciflcalT, at t,is time as a res.lt of the cutting. But It could ~ap~eA at some time fA the fut~re. He did not indicate te m! any concerl t~it they ~uld bave t~ be removed as i resslt of this c~ttlng. ~5. lytle: ~at the arborist did ~ntior. is that they WG~ld be pruned so that the leaf canopy fl t~at bloct~ whfch now encompasses the entire street~ is likel1 not to returl tQ that fora. j dOD't think there is an1 risk of the trees not sur.i.l09, but What ~ouTd probabl, happen is that It is unlitel, that it ~uld ev~r ret uri to its current canopy effect. ~ere they to~c~ across the street~ Tbere wo~Td be an opeAfng bet~ee~ them. Immediate!J. Df course. w~at ~appens is that yOQ get; bGx-shape trfm through that area vhere the house .auld pass. sa you will see thfs sort of clearing ~ad!. T~at ~ould retur. t, I natural form eventual11. but not t~ its current state. Commissioner Huber: Are the canopy trees the ones listed 00 Waverley -2- • \ \ \ • .. \ . ., i , I l ~ . - o Street? (Yes) HOw .ld are t~ose tre.,? ~$. lvtle: J am not sure of thefr age. o Chir~an ~r$h: J .ould not~ t~at we hav~ several new handouts before ",. The first Is I revisioo to Condition Ill, given to us by the staff. It notes that Condition 112 would be amended to read that the ~!.toric ~ouse and the eJtsting ~ouse s~all be restored to use as single-family residences. It goes on to adjust that condition as appropriate for t~at (:l'Iange. The .econd Item Is a l.tter froo lIllian Godbee of 130 Cowper Street, objecting to the nove. The thIrd Is • three·page letter Signed by about two dezen neighbors _ho identify the~selves as being either pro~ert1 owners contfguous to 422 Palo Alto Avenue Dr other nearh} resfdents. Wit~ tho •• comments J will open the public he.riog. Joseon ehoghl, 451 Ruthve. Avenue. Pal. Alt.: I live just beblnd the property on Palo Altl Avenue. ~y comments are all related to fAR issues ond reguTatlon •• Sa,lcalll I feel th.t the .ubdivi.ion of the Polo Alto Avenue l.t Is contrary to the FAR regul.tlons of the tit! of P.lo Alt. and vill create i far more oppressiv! fAR for that l~t. The second comment is t~at crowdiQ9 these bouses together on Pal~ ATt~ Avenue will create a t~til1, different nefg~borbood ambfence that cone erAS t~e s~rrounding Defg~bors: Farking fssues~ (:ongestlon~ daylight plane encroac~ments and 10" .f trees. Th. t~;rd comment is that the .ffected propert, will be of a ~uc~ lower standard and, consequentl,. will affect the nearby propertJ ,alues. T~e comment r also want t~ mak~ is that awhtle ago il Pal~ Alto, t~fs overcrowding was I big issue, i. order to stop the 1ncompatlble and oddball cDnstr~tfDn. Now. ~ Question fs w~y some prefere~tiil treatment wi n be given the developers h order til come up Witla sucn i JlI an. I do nat have any otber detailed lafo~atfDn on this, but the issue I a~ bringing up is floor area ratio for !11e c.onyerted lQts. Thank YOI1. Alex NcComas. 429 Ruthven Avenue, pala Alt~: ~y property backs up ta 422 P.l. Alto Avenue. You mfg~t be thinking th.t I do not want any development I. ~ b.ck yard. but the case i. th.t the ~ouse they would be tearing down tG make ~J fo~ t~e new ~ouse sits rig~t on the property line and runs the f.ll ~ feet of my back yard. If he were to tear that down to la~e WIY for t~e Dew ~ouse. 1m i lot of ~ay$ I .ig~t he gettiDg a better deal, but the reison I am speakfng tonight and complailing about it is that be is applJing for fiye or six yarfa~ces for t~e combination of the two properties. J have bee. down to t~. ,lan.lng department II the ~lst t. get I variance f~r =y ;ropertl When I was t~inkfng af moving the gar.ge about two fe.t I,to "y side y.rd set~ack. The reason I wanted to do that wa. t. s.v •• n .ld tree ;1 the back yard. I wa. basically t.ld that I could go ahead w1t~ It, but the (:~ances of getting the Yariance would be very .111. I went ahead and built the garage i.side the .etback S~ I ~uld not need a warfanee. b~t I was askiDQ for one variance for a rather small iBfractioD into a setbact, and Mr. frailer is looiing at quite a few variances whfch could impact Quite I few neighbors 11 surro~nding lots~ I t_int it ;s very unfafr that you are e~eA (onsldering granting t~ese varIances ~en Qt~er people i~ the eftJ are told. sure, you couTeI go a~ .. d but the c~anc .. are very sUa. wileR looting .t •• 11ght I.fraction. There are quite i few other Issues such as trees, etc., but It seems to me that it should never eveR get t& t~is poi~t, because of the L • '\ I ! , . -,'l_ .. , "" .... , ,'0' \ . \ \ \ \ .' \. , -. , , r-..... J -, '. o variance standpofct. variances that could rhnk you. o Fo~ somebody t~ come in and 15k for that ~any impact so many peop1e, [ thlnk it is very unf.ir. "reg Chesson. US "'av~rl~_2tree.t. Pilm Alto: J would fi rst Tile to POiClt out that doc~ment5 filed w;t~ the planning commission co~tai~ I fair amount gf incorrect and contradictory information. Because of thfs, if the nrfances ire appra .... ed is written, the "Hriance-process is based on flawed iafonmation and can be chal]enged~ What was the variance granted for? Tlfs versfon of the numbers? That version of the numbers? Palo Alto homeowners who now just suspect that a lot of wariances ife judged in I caprfclous manner will no longer hav~ doubts, if you pass t~fs thing tbrougb. The yariance~ are not necessary to prevent hardship O~ the owner of tne property. becau,e the property is .lready built up to and beyond the .llo •• ble fAR. So I conclude t'at the owner already h., foIl u" of the propertl. To deny the owner the right to double the nor~al ~se Qf the propert1 cannot be considered an ~nreasonable or unnecessari ~ardsbip. The granting of t~es! ~iriances will be detrimental and i~jurlous to property to th vici.ity. I ~ant you to take i loo~ at some of the incorrect i~formation t~at is before you. Here is a schemitic of ~hat is prese~tlJ on tne lot. The total lot irea~ before subdivision, is 14,152 square feet, not 14~253 or 14~42S or any of the other confl1ct10g n~rn~rs that you ~ill find in the documents. I would be quite happy to take the tIme to run through the calc~l.t;ons to show w~ere the error iD the submitted dOCUmEnts probabl, is. If yo~ dQ go through wit~ t~is, you at least ought to ~ave on record what the rjg~t areas are. So I take the area as 14 ,152 square feet a~d am quite ct!rtlil that t~at is correct. We will take the floor uea of Rouse A~ the bouse t~at is ~resentlJ there, is 4,118 square feet, based on fjT~ documents. J t~lnt that fs incorrect, and should act~allJ be a little lOre because some portfons were excluded fro~ the floor calc~litfons that I t~ink ,hoold ~.ve been inclodod. Nev.rthele,s. if you take the filed area Qf 4J778 sqYire feet. let'5 take a look at the floor irea that is pe~jtted on the lot as it stands right now. You can see what the floor irea calcrlation is -4S percent of S~OOO ~l~s 30 percent of everything ower that~ and ~en you add the~ uP. you get 4,995 square feet. So with t~e ~ouse which is presentTs at •• 778 square feet plus or minus some arguable errors il ~ether t~at is the right figure or not, and you compare that to 4~99S square feet, you can very easilJ see t~at the present state of the yard. not co~n~ing th~ 3-bedroom apartmer.t im the back. is right up at th, ~AR, and if you do count the apartment .t the batt, the present state ;s ~ay over the fAR_ the point is that if you now dra~ i line through this lot, an~ you ~ave a house amic" exceeded the FAR for a I.,OOO~ square-foot lot ind you now p~t it ~n i 7,500 square-foot lot. it exceeds the ~AR by about 2,000 square feet. If you allow thl,. b!lfeve everyo~e il that nefghborhood, if not the entire city. ~as a legitimate reason to request from the ,lanning commfssion i varfance to overbuild their lots by 2,000 square fee!. A few ether f~accuracies that Ire ia the filed info~ation: It safd that t~e totil number of occupants of the current propertJ is six. It is more like IJ. On one of t~e~ pa~rs it says t~at the eXlsting size of the structure Is 3 1 000 square feet. r hive already shown you t~at it is more like 5,000. The expected number of vebiele, d.ily is going to be four. It is DOre lite six or .ig~t. (Photographs of ~.rked car, shown) Tils -4- ----..,.-----""""--. ·L --...... - \ .' • j L t r I , [ ,> , -. . > ... ~ • .~", . ".< ; ~ >!" .' .. , . I i. ·1 1 o shows five vehfcTes one ~rlingl and there were about three .iss;ng. That 1s the c~rrent state of t~e oc(upancy. So basiclll, I am simply ~oint;n9 out anotber ViY fl wbfch the filed ilfo~atfon fs incorrect and lIisleading. Ne~t is il regard to the trees. The enwironmental assessme~t report says, -No sfgniffcant fmpacts were deter.ined to result ... -It also SiYS. "The holl, cai and chestnut w11l require severe pruning and ~ay never returD to their oxl.tlng .Izo ond .hape. The holll oak may need to be removed to accommodate t~e DOYe. The chestnut DiY not recover.-Certified arborists ~a'o warnod that the other SO or '0 tree. that require prunIng will be offected ••• trongll a. the belly oat and chestnut. How can the planning commfssfon accept I report. based on this lmformation. t~at says -No significant Tmpach were deterlllrled"Z ,",lso. I lIight ask .... ~ether the people who have been preparing the environmental assessment reports are the same people Wfio were figuring the lot areas? l~fs is i p~otograpb at the corner Qf Wav~rl!y Street and Palo Alto Avenue looling down ~ere you see the bolll cak and c~estnut. It is pretty clear t~at it is not po •• !ble to p'" • 20 • 2S foot .trueture through there. I also c"allenge t~at the cross-section area of the house as It ;s mo~ed is. r. fact. no nore than 20 I 25. Who calc~lated that? What is the pro~f? I tend tl disbelieve that. The c~ances of drfllng a truck 1~ i straight line Dr OD I ~redfcted course around a corner are going to make the cross-section be wider than IS measured. I do not quite believe that 20 I 25 foot measurement is accurate~ an~. l~f$ is the ,iew down Waverley. yo~ can see ~ere the trees meet in the middle. fbat street is 40 feet wide. You (an see th.t the "ature of t~at ,few will be drastical), altered by whacking away at the tree canopy. It will not be the saiTlE' for a long time, if ever_ [Will close witlrl a slli,ple request. fleise respect the wis~es ef the 300 or so resi~ents who have sfgned ~he petitfon protesting t~ls mo~e~ ~hic~ you will receive tonight, and try tl aVOid, if y~u posslblJ can, making a mo<kery of the lon1og laws. I'an\ you. (athleen (ri;a. 101 Waverley Street, Pila Alto: Respected commiSSioners, I ~ave been follOWing the issue gf sav1ng the '7ctorian ~~use ~t~ great iltrrest for some time. My interest became cancer" when I heard Cou~cilma~ Levy say that it would be wort~ losfng scme trees ta save this .ld ~ou~, because trees can be replaced, and the house cannot. My concen tU1"l'Ied to horror upon finding out t~at the nei,ghbcrhood illvolved f. the proposed move Is my own, and t~ree of the trees fn~oTved are i. froDt Df my house. One, t~e ~orse chestnut, fs listed in the publfcation -Trees of Pal; Alt,.· T~;s particular tree is one that both the city 'rbo,ist and I have bee. tryicg t. save. i. '9ft. of .11 the root cottlng that was done when t~e sidewalks were replaced three years ago. As wit~ .11 tree. f. t~o Cit,. it i. additlonall, stre.>ed by four yea,' of dr~ught. There are no guarantees, but tne tree 5ee~s to be healing itself ind reccveriDg. S1nce I feel unqualified to deter.ine the effect of the tree cottlng n •• ded to facllit,te me,fng the ,feces .f t~e structur. through town. I 'fred Barrfe Coate, an e5tee~ed arborjst~ to tell me how our trees ~11 fare wit~ suc~ ext~eme f~jury. He was not able to 'ide ~;s dl.gu.t .t the propo.ed cottlng. It is ,i. profe.slon.l opi.;eo t~at both trees "amed il .is report will be lQst. [~a~e ,ive~ eac~ Df you a copy Df .fs report, and I implore you t~ take the time to read t~is report. ] L • I ! I t \ . \. .' ., -, , . ~ ,. \ nOj I 1 , 1 .... ~~.~.< " I . -.' --', - t'\ O. would lUe to qu~ one parag.raph from the report which I believe sums It all up. -It is intornprehensib1e to me that Pi10 Alto, the (ity ~~ic~ is rooked up to by Qt~er £ities Gf ~id-Califoraii for its tree preservatfoc .tstory and its tree-covered streets. woul~ even consider i11Qwing the damage that w111 be caused by the necessary pruning i~ order to ~ve the house do .. n thts street. Tbh seems SO' inccnsistent wit~ the "15tor1 of Pil. Alto and Its reputation for love of trees.' J gave Bill Zaner • copy of t~ls repcrt, ~oping to encourage staff t. look more closely at the effect that t~is c~tting w~uld have on ill of the trees on the root. I~stead, they chose to minimize the total, overall impact and pofDt out t~e two trees that [ fc<used on as exceptiona1 cases, Well, as tbings tend to evolve. my horror turned to olJtrage 'When I read the cH, staff report, that 11 their judgment, there is no negati~e environmental ;m~act on t~e nefg~borhood as i result of t~is house move. Our Cit, arborist, Dave Sandage. ~as been publicized in To<a1 newspapers, telling how much stress o~r trees are under as the result of four years of drought. I~ ~i neighborhood, they ~ave beeD deiH a~oUier b10w by the sidewalk. replacements that have been done. To further compou~d the stress fn the 200 block of Vaverley* where the tree (ancpy over the street ~ll ~ave to be destroyed, there flas been Ilajor construction cf curhs and sidewalks tl!! create Johnson Park) addit1ool11, ~eakening thfs precious resource. To add f.s.lt t. i.jury, the staff recommended t~at the cutting be done i. the presence of an arborist, is thoU9~ somehow, that will stop thlS effect. It -won't. I .have the greatest respect for arborists and the work that they do, but there ls only so ~"ch that can be done, even by He best Qf arborists lite Dave Sandage and Gary Wauman when this amount of c~ttiDg is dDne. flany [If the-trees ire: going to die with thB t:ouse I':ove. The~ will not die t~e same day they are c~t~ ~aJbe not even the same year* but fa ~'year Dr two, ~e ~11 see the decline and deith of these trees and the lDSS of yet one more of the cnaracteristfcs t~at ~ale our neighborhood i beautifwl place to live. Planting new trees 1s not the answer. "ost of these trees ~ave bee~ around longer than you. Indeed, some are is Ild is the bo~se fl q~estion~ It ~as taken t~at long for them to become w~at they are, and t~efr griee and majesty can nat be replaced by i new tre~ from a 15-gallon can. Thank you. CommiSsioner 8egc~am: Drawing on your e~perfen(e, J am trying to recall about the chestnut blight and wonder If t,is tree is or could be affected by t~.t. ~s. (rafa: No, this tree is not affected by chestnut blight. There is some p~ytopheri t~at has affected the tree as a res~lt of the root damage, but that ~as dane three years ago. That is w~at ~e are tr}ing to overc~me n~W. last year, ~e did nat tna. if we ~ere gains to be successfwl, ind~e had i very earl, drop of fcliage from tne tree in questfoD. Tnis year it Pyt out ~ verj good canopy of foliage, and we have been very ho~ef~l. Vnl!'R Barrie (oite -was on sHe, he Dl€nt ioned the fact tl'tat the cambiulJ layer under the old, ~ist~rbEd bark lS actual1y start,ng to recov€r and reform 2 Ifee, heilthy growt~ on the t~ee. CQrnmissiontr Beec~)~: Is t~is species of c~estnut s~sceptible to chest~ut bllgM! "$, Craia: I do not believe it is. I am not an e~pert, however~ Commlssioncr Huber: Is there I life expectanty estimate for that tree? • .'.~ .~,~~ :--,: _;.;L "'-'-. ~ oJ· - . "" ...• jt ,; , .. , o M5. (fiiq: I ~a~e been ta1d by Barrie that ~o~i'll. t~fs tree would have Nonl.lore yUT5 Clf life lc!ft h it, wlt"out additfonal dama£e • COmmlssfoner Hyber: But how long does an average c~est~ut cf tkis type live? "s. Craig: I do not know the answer. I a~ not an arborist. I a~ a ~orticMlturilfst. Commjssjoner G1ll1er: $a~s. -Adjusted worth correl,te t~at t~ the category. On Page 6~ under lift Expectancy (valuation, it times life expectancy. 95 percent.-If you percent ratfng. it c~rrelites wit" the Over 30 Years Roger Craig. 101 VayeTley Street. pila Alto: 1 a~ appearing before yQU in ~rotest to this request. I would like to state first that I ~ant to see t~fs ~fstorjc bouse located. I T~~e old houses t is i Tot of us do in this efty. It is perceived that grantfng these variances is oecessar) to protect the 'fsto~fc house from demolition. T~js is not true. The on11 t~ing t~at these variances are req~ired for is to guarantee that moving the bou>e vill confer profit on the owner of 422 P,lo Alto Avenue. There is an alternative site on ~fddlefield Road owned b1 the city which _nuld require far less tree d~mage and far less compromise to our zoning rw1es. I ~aye just submitted i letter to you to demonstrate t~at conditions required to make the ~ecessar1 findings do not e_ist and t~at the findings preseRted rl the 5taff report are im tontradictlon to Palo Alto~s established practice of variance approvals and not ia ccmpllance with the P,lo Alt. ~unlcip.l Code. I a. going to do something naught, now and step out onto thin ice ~ere r1Dn·law.yers should ~ot go, and talt about He h·". The subject request is complfcated and contains ~any objectionable features. ~y letter therefore is long. I apologize for jt~ length, but J t~lnk you need to know what is cootained therefo. I shall c,ver onlJ the ~i9hI19hts. We ~ave II ,lace i variety of zoning rwles~ ~any of ~s have found them a nuisa~ce to work ~th and have become frwstrated with t~eir seemingly irrelevance ta any sense. But t~ere is no doubt that they play an f~p~rtant role fa ~elplng ~old t~e texture of our city. They ~ave been devei~p~d by us fOf that purpose. As in example, we can rec~11 the recent struggle to devlse the FAR regulitions to protect ~s (ro~ developers who ~uld damage our neighborhoods fo~ p~Qfit by building oversized houses. We all ~orked ~ard to come to an agreement that was, although a (ompromlse. accepted by Ill. We all then ~aye I right to its protection. Tl'te same can be said for other rwles regarding daylight planes, setbaci.s. lot ~dthsl etc. CompromisiDg the zoning rules ls a breach cf agreement witb the reside~ts of fale Alta and should be done onl, w~en it is clear that the negatf~e impact is small and that complfance is unfair to the owner. Indeed, th15 idei is embodied il the fact t~at t~e ~f;ndings· are part ~f our aunicfpal <ode~ Grantfng special pri~ileges under the law to this deve10per tc allow 'irja~ces would be a gross11 unfifr applfcition of t~ •• unlclp.l code. It would establish, dubious precedent, and would ble~ish the c~.ract.r of the 1 •• dership of our Cit,. Ne)t is a copy of a page from t~e Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section ·1· L • , f ~ i I . , , \. \ , , -'. ..J ,. '. ·71· . -" -. . -: ._' -;;0:. ... -".' /~ ... 1 . , I '. . r- , I l - 18.90.0~~ It C~i~S the legal statem~nt of t~~ndingS whfc~ the zonfng adm'.fstrator must ~ake to grant i ~ariince. The ~or~ing of the cGde is understindahle~ but municipal (odes are onerous. technical documents and ire not general1,. read "'y those ~f LIS who are not law~Jers~ ~. look t. the cltl staff to help .,. They ha'. a lot of numbers and cross-references and you are ne¥Er sure if )OU are seeing all the feformatfoD you need to see. Tne (itt helps LIS in the form of consultatIon and other booclets prepared by staff to par.p~rase and ilterpret t~e code. Palo Alto gives out two booklets for this use. One of thea Is • book called "lhe Zoning GuidebooK for the R-J PropertJ Owner and Builcfer.· fils is freel] handed Dut to anyone .. ho comes in for il ~artance~ T~is and the next bOOK ~xplain the code and the practice of application. The rest of ~s must conform t~ these guidES. It is $elf-evide~t t~it the de~elo~er m~st ilso do so in this ta~e~ 1 vould like to diStij~s the findings. There is somet~in9 subtle about the .. but it is clear upon reading. Thi s is Finding No~ 1 which requires that the property must ha~e extriQ~dina~y circumstances ~hi<~ dn cot gener~ll, appl1 to ctner properties )0 the same district. It is clear that t~15 refer. t. the lot and not to the improvements. That i., the lot must somebow be different from the neighboring Tots. Indeed, t"lS same ~iew is expla.ined in the book.lets. in .... ords and examples is fol1aws~ Tbe findlng fs parapnrased in tne lonlng guide~ook: The propert, for ~~ich a varia.nce is requested is unique. Unique is described in tenms of the lot and its c~aricter~ A ~ery ~arrow lot is compared to a normal one or one bisected b) I creek or one with i steep slope~ T~is wiewgraph s~o~s the initial page of th~ booklet "Applying for a rarian(e.· rt emphasizes that the physical property ~U$t be the detenniliDg factor, a~d it cites p~ysTcal s~rroundings~ shape or topograpby. Jhe key pelot I want to ~ake clear is t~at the code i,terpret.tloD and tne policy of the City of Palo Alto are to require t~.t the conditf~ns for ffnding No~ 1 are based on uniqueness ~f the lot, not the improvements. The report argues t~at an FAR variance should be given for t~e exfstfng bouse because othe~ properties <ontaiQ nonco~formin9 resfdences. r~fs ~s not rele~ant, since it does not address t~e p~ysical propertl~ It is noteworthy that the need for the variance Qves not e~eR exist untfl it is created by the sutJivisl0n. (Ne.t wlewgraph) tot 158 is the lot in Question. I live in lot 147. and some peop'e present tonight li~e at lot i~9. lhose lots all look very similar tD~. They are flat~ They de not ~a~! rectangular shapes~ Jhe lot fa questioD does not ~ave, by any of the i~terpretations offered ta US~ any unfqueness ~hfch would ~llow finding ')~ IN findln9 12, this findiog requ1res t~at the .ariance is necessary for preser~lng and enjoyment ~f a substanti.l property right. As befor~~ this finding must be based on unlqueness of the lot, is stated il the zoning guidebuoi. If you ~l) look at Variance 12 t based on the uniq~eness ~f the lot, the propert, owner does oat r,alj~ th~ same JJelle10pmenhl rights as aW!'H~:rs of typ;c.l lots. The examples emp~asile th.t t~e physlc,l features or the tot is the bas's for the flndin9~ T~e findin~ in the r~port is agli& based on t~e exfsting house, onl] hecause some division (reates a non,onformance. T~\$ is cl~ar11 not r~lEvint i. that the reason is not vested fl t~e lot but ;~ the action of tne subdivision. I~ addition, it is st. ted that the structure ~o"ld be .ltered t. con for. t. the f~ or the existfng structure~ Since it is not a historic structure, jt ~a5 no -8- • -,"=-", , • " ! , , \ , \ \ , \ ~ \ ., .;.,:-. ! I f " ! . -:.'- ,,-. ; . ' "' -- -' o o recognIzed arc~itectural sfgnificincf. The argument against aTtering it is thus spur'ous. Under ffnding 12, t~is warfance is not necessary. and conforma~e s~ouTd be required. T~fs ~ou'd not prove a ~ards~ip t~ t~e owner, si~e Pal a Alto wo~Td be conferrtng I larg~ profit on ~im bj approval of these wariances. I. addition, it is ludicrous to argue, a~ ia the report, t~at the granting fs ·necessarJ for the preser~atiQn a~d enjoyment cf a substantial propert1 right of the applltant,' The owne, alre.dy enjoys fa' ~are prepert, rights than ~Is neighbors, and now he want, gare. The exi.ting nou.e has been con~erted f~to three domiciles and t~o kitc~ens. Tbere is I cottage wit~ anot~er titc~e~, total11ng four separate domiciles and three titthen., ,II rented on an R·l lot. He ha. ,t.ted i. ~i' application that thefe are onl, si' renters. but t~e reality is that the~e a~e ten renters with teA cars. I know these thfogs because I live next door~ The property is jyst large enough to accommodate the existi~g hoyse vithout the cottage I and now be wants to decrease the size of the lot and a~d another verI large structure~ The owner's need for a substantial property right fs excessfve and o~t of proportion to the neighborhood and tQ PaTo A1to. His excess;~e need for substantia' property ri9~ts 1s the on11 extraordinarJ thing about t~e propertJ. I a~ sorry if I sound facetious. but t~'s is bUTDfng very deepl] S!to man1 of us who live i~ t~is area as a ver1 unfair t~ing. finding 13 fs to demonstrate that the granting will not be injurious to the property Dr improvements 11 the ~fcil;tJ and v11l not be i_jurfous tm the public beilt~. safety. general we1fare D~ con~e~ten(e~ In t~e zoning g"ldebook, t~fs fInding Is amplified b1 neting tnat the wariante will not be detrimental ta surroundiDg prGperty own~rs or res;dents~ ] enclosed with my packet. letter submitted t. the city co"ncll which protests t~is subdi'lsion is detrimental. vii t~e si9nat~re sheet~ It is signed by every owner or resident contfguous to the subject property~ These people collectlvel] repre.ent expert I.e en t!is property. I would t~all.nge their expertis, lS befng superior tc the expertise of the ~it, stiff on thIs fssue~ There is unanimous agreement that finding 13 cannot be made. The damage to our tree canopy wIll be outrageD",. The staff repert trf~ial1zes the damage, but it will be e~tensive~ J offer as evidence t~e prcfessfonal arbortst's report ~lC~ you ~a~e ;1 your hands. wit~ ~ls condemnation of the activity. I Ilso would offer extempcraneousl, that I a~ offended by your st.ff offerfng t~emselves is expert ~itnesses on the tree issYe th~s even;~g. [think your tounc~lmembers should reject this. "any of •• who live I. f.lo Alt. have. great de.l of regard for tr.e., and oamagiDg them is damaging to the general ~elfaTe and conyenfence~ There is expert op;~ion t~at t~ere lrll1 be substantial damage t. surrounding properties. 1_ addition , there is a feeling of loss of wellbeing _hen we (a~ be forced to endure l~ss to confer profit DO the develeper. nl, Is ~.rd to quantify. but I would suggest readiDg Pat fisher', article fl the San Jo.e "-rcury is an example ef the negatfve effect on .s by t~f' actlen. You will receive I cop1 ef this l.t.r to'lgM. finding 13 )t the stiff Tep~Tt lS i tTi~esty of the facts. The crowding and f~trwsfon into the daylight ,lane and creation ~f an oversized house ~ll affect all of o~r property vaTues, as w~ll as diminis~ our e~joyment Df our propertl~ I respectfill1 submit these facts and opinion to you to assist yo~ fa Issessfng t~e application. and request t~at ~ou give them .g. • ,. , • I l , i \ •. -:-) ........... , ".-""., "-' . -,"' . --.', «c.:<-1 \ I \ ,'(" \' . • . ' "f;' ,", I ' .. I I - ,-... 10ur f"l1 considerQon. o nank you. CPmmissioner Hirsch: ~e are spending a Tot of time ti1iing about the trees~ ] want to get something clarified at t~is time by staff~ A part1c~1,iT pat'" lias been selected by staff fol'" the mo'o/ement Qf t},e hOUS!L Is this considered to be, in staff's opinion, tne most desjrable r~ute? Are t~ere no Dther routes at a11 which ~ould ~a'o/e a lesser amount of damage to move the ~ouse from its present locatlan to fiTa Alto Avenue? ~1llt: ~y understanding is t~at this was d~terained to be the most deslrable route~ Other routes were either infeasible because of the ne~d to ~we mijor uttlity lines Dr they resulted in a similar amount of tree damage 11 other areas, and had more tnconvenience in other ways. After some study, this was considered to be the most desirahle route, but it eau'd be loot!d at i~ain. Tnis is not nec~ssaril1 cast 1ft b~o~le. The b~ilding offfcill~ ~tiliti€s personnel ind the arbcrist did ~alt the ro~te, as ~ell is alternative routes, i~ determining tnis to be t~e preferred route. CQmpissjorgr HfTSC~: Tbe path does End up on Middlefield for awhile. \'hat was Ule problt!m in contirliJing nort~\ttard 0" Middlefield toward the creek, and then proceed along Palo ~ltc A~enue or some other street~ ~,Lytle: I believe it was t~e negotiating of Palo A1to Avenue, which is a winding street. There is vegetatfon along the creek side~ as well, so it was attempting to negotiate the route along Palo Alto Avenue that was a proble •. Mjchele Saney, 590 ~averl~~treet, Palo A1to: I represent the appl1cant O~ t~e project. I ~ould like to state that we hav! read th~ staff report and i1l of the conditions, and agree to accept the~ as prcposed~ One tking t~at ~dS done very recently 1S that we met agaiR with the ar~rists and _or\ed on the acttial configuration of the pieces of the house t~at ~e are moving. Tbere is an alternative t~at we ~ant to present for yo~r conslderatfoD~ ~hfch is tc remove the second story of the Victorian and fIOve jast the first story. 1&15 reduces the she of the pieces. The max;~m prece vould be ]7 feet bigh bJ 14 feet wide. This 1s quite i bit smaller than the 20 x 15 figure th.t was u>o~ by the (it! •• n~ based on fllrl, broad information at the beg1nning of the project. The meeting that we ~ad ~th the arbcrist ~sing tnese ne~ dl~ensio~s indi(ated t~at they wou1d not ba~e to rfIDove either the oak or the c~estnut on the corner of 'Waverley and P.ilo .Alto A .... enue. requiring on~J rlOderate trimming to the canopy of the trees. Aga;~, ~e prese~t this is an 6ptjon for your cons1derition~ The second stGry of the stru~turef if it was not moved on top of the ffrst story, ~ou1d be rebuilt at the new location4 [t would require ~o revis'on to the plans O~ t~e elevat~ons t~at ~e ~ad submitted, since we would be replicating t~~ stru<:ture at t~at poir,L ~an ~ars~: Ha~e you presented this option to the Historic Reso~rces Board or any Qf the p~ople ;n~olved in it? ~sr 'anev: Not to the Historic Resources Board. (bair.an Mars": lritiat is jlour assessment of the nlue of a historic structure ;f you lop off tn. top of ;t? -10- -,-.",' • ?--."";-;:"-. • f . , . ; , .~.,- :!~'. , i I j I ! I o ~s Ganew: Tkfs fs ~hat we van ted to present to Jau IS a~ 11ter~ative. It is l ~ue.\lo. thit the <itl tcuntll needs to decide -if theJ ~ant to save the structure or save the trees, or a compromise sol~tioD. We are not 'lYing ~ hive the answer to thi' proble •. t2mmissioner Huber: Afte~ re$Oving the toP. were you going to re~ssemb1! the existing top, or not? Ms_ Ganey: I do not believe that would be possible. If you moved the portion of the building fro. grade t. tne second floor trim line th.t runs across the porc~ line and the base of the turret, ke~plng the ceiling jOists, floor joists, keeping the "ape of the turr.t, that gives os the 17-foot ~elgbt. It is certai.', possible to s.l •• ge , lot of the trim, SOMe of the facia. th! windows~ etc. bot t~at ~as not been investigated by an expert. It would ~eed t~ be researched more carefwlTy. [a~ pre.entlDg it slmp1, as an .lter.ative t. ke,p the ,eight down and the widt~ narrower IS you mov~ the str~cture through the street t@ mitfgate as ~UC_ as possible any damage to trees~ V! perceive t~ls to be a major ,oncer' and are attempting to address lt~ Commissioner Gliljer~ Once the house ~.s been moved, what is the ~lan for restoration, renowation t filing UP. etc.? Has there been any decisfoD .ade on the $Cope Qf t~e restoration and/or the .mount of dollars that are gofng to go \,t. it? ~s~ ~anel: At t~is poi~t. we ~ave some plans drawn up by our architect who ;. pres.nt tonight_ The1 ~ave bee. submitted t. the citJ_ It favolv!s fafrl, extensive remodelling ~f the i~terfor tc <o~vert it to I 5fn91e·fa~111 resfdence~ More specific tnan that~ I can refer you to o~r architect . COmmiSSioner ilazfer: So there is no estimate of tne <ost? ! •. 'aney: Not at this time. Cwhsigner 'lizler.:: The existfng resfaence aD the left-'hand side {If ttle property c~ntafns bow.any liylcg units current11? I bave neard reference to two litcbeR$~ three tit(hens, seve~ ~eople. eight people. Ms. baney: There are three titchens there. t~o fn the house and one in t~e cottages I believe. The c~ttage would be removed as a part Qf t~isJ and the residence would be converted t~ one hO~$e as part Qf the applfcatfon. Ultimatel,! if thfs .ent through a~d the two houses were on the propert]. t~ere ~ould be single·tamil, r!sidences t~ere. TereSI ~Ynoz, 431 Palo Alto Avenue, Pal, Alto: I a~ here to present to you. petItIo. gathered ~y ~s.lf .nd • number of my neighbors. 1 also want tB give you an artfcl! by Pltt~ fisher priated in the San J~se Mercury Ne •• 00 frld", August 10, 1990_ Patt, expresses some of the ,iews ~ic~ we share. I also ~ust add that I ~ive a personal interest fa the ~he~tnut tree on the corner. I do not live rlg~t next to it but valk Jlast about four houses h get to it ~ wtlfdl ! do ~~n}' .-Tt~ I1Y dog: and my fo.ter son. 1 like that tre •. It i. beautif.l_ My fost,r soo picks up c~estnuts and brloQ them t. me. I would p.rsona1ly miss that tree if it were gone. I ~outd now lite to read the petition. ·fro~ the ~itizens opposed to movfng the 'Istoric house fro~ 545 forest Avenue t. 422 Pil. -II . , \ > • ~ .. , .\ \ \ . , \ \ \ \ -: " ·)r~. ~ .... " "' ::". 'i;~~ . .... , . -' ; ~ .. '~.,.....-"0_ , I i ! "".- .Alta Avenue: veQhe undersfgiled. oppose l1o¥ir')g Q hoyse presentl, it 545 Forest to 433 faTo Alto because it fs not 1m the ~ublic interest. The move would create permanent da.ag~, as explained below~ Subd;vidiog the lot at 422 Palo Alto Avenue to accommod.te both t~e pcesent ~ouse and t~e Forest Avenue ho~se wou1d create two oversized houses on undersized lots, and would ~10late all of the fAR, offset and dayl;g~t plane regulitions. OVerbuil~ing a lot at 422 P,l. Alto Avenue would ag9r.,ote t~e existing, ~igh-de.sitl parking problem along F,10 Alto Avenue. More than SO street trees ilong Waverley and Hawthorne Streets would be severel1 cut i~ order t~ .ave t~e ho~se. The tree canopy WQuld be destroyed, and the trees would sdffer permanent or long-term damage.' The number -50· was adjusted f. an odd fashion today and w.s reduced to 33. I do oot know why. I know that you ~ave heard these statements earlier this eveni"9~ ~ut J a~ rereadfng them because I feel you should knew that over 3~0 people ~a~e read t~is statement and agree wit~ it and signed ft and petition you DOW to stop this actio.. These are t~e residents of the City of Pilo Alto who object t~ this actfon, and [ submit the pet!tion at t~ls time. t ~ave been lfste~fng tonignt, and I find it surprisfng. given the nature af our nefghbor~ood and the "ature of its reside"ts~ t~at someone ~ou1d set about to do suc_ a large project ~itho~t discwssioy it wit~ any of us. Our neighborhood fs one Qf concerned peop1e. communicative people. t~lerant and frfendl, and wel) organized people who are ~oncerned a~ut eac~ ot~er and about our neighbor~ood. I wDuld like you to see the people ~o I lfve next to and down the street ~o have co~ tonight. Please raise lo~r bands~ I belfeve these are some of ~y neighbors who are here t. object to this proposal. Thank yoo. Vavid C.herito~, 13) Cowner Street. Pilo Alto: I illl outside of the fmmedilte zone of tiis project. a~d you bave beard from my neighbors talting about t~e various things they are concerned about. As this is the ,1annfDg commfssfon , you guys are concerned ~th the big picture so you can write off i certain amount of this as a bunc~ of neighbors concer~ed abo~t things not ~appen;"g 1~ thefr baek Jard. I ~ould like to raise an fss~e that vas touched en a little by the previous spea\er, .hic~ is the question of ~eighborbood_ Many times, the Palo Alto Nort~ Downto~n area feels like It Is tre.ted is , second-class oeig~.r~ood. The last time I vas taTting to the cit1 eounc1} was w~en ~e ~ere trying to get Johnson Park t~rned into Johnson Park, and one of the responses was, ~ell. there ire no kids there, there are no fam'lies there. and we had to get a bfg tur~out to prove that. [f you go to Johnson Park now, you will see it is one of the most active parks f~ the city. The turnout we have tonight Rroves there is a nefghbor~ood there. I think the zoning laws are a little nafve on this~ The] are ~ecessary because not everyone lfves where they b~11d, and if you ~ad to live where you b~11t. you wo~ld be a little more respectf~l. II t~ls case, de~elopers are an important part of tne development If tne city. and certai.l, because they generallJ 60 not live ~ere they build, they are the ones w~o s~ou1d be o~eying the zoning laws. When you pass zoning raws~ presumabl" they mean something. [N ter'lls of neighborhood. taTting aholJt t~at as I nluable commodit.r here, as opposed to just trees ~r ~ld ho~ses, etc., i good neighborhood comes from good neighbors_ Even though ~. Trafler does not lfve 1m the Delghb<lr~ood. one of the tkings I would 1 ike t. see this case judged 00 i little bit js~ how does be actuall, contribute to t~is neighbor~ood? Has Mr. Trailer bee" • good neighbor even though ~e does,'t live t~ere? lou ~ave seeo some detai!s of the lot. Wh.t woold Palo Alto be like if every -12- -"-.~-,....-. .. -_.- L • '. . . , \ . ' ~ -.. \ .. ;;. .. • .'\:.,. ;.;.>.'{,. - . . o o lGt il Pil0 Alto Qr even every l~t i. Downtown Nort~ were 1fke ~. Traller's is rfght now? What would Palo Alto be like if every 'iW~S changed like thfs? tet's apply this simple nelghbor~ood criterh and say. wDuld yO" want this project to ~appen f. YDUr neighbDr~Dod? ~.ybe we shDuld ask~. Trail.r If he woul~ like It t. happe. ,. ~is .eigtborhood II Cr. scent Part. II general. the answer has t. be no. The ,al.able commodity we have I. Pal. ATt. is that we have good neighbors and good nefghbcr~oods. and t~~ reaSOQ the land fs yal~able, t~e reison people want to live f. Palo Alta is because of the good neighborhoods. I <an write off I house. I can write off i ffW trees, ] can write eff i certaia amount tf sunlight. but t~e thing we iTe reall] dealing w;t~ here ;s i nelghbcrhood that has been badll treated by the cit,. Tbis is a project that .ould not go ahead I. any of t~e est.~llshed first-class De1ghborhoods, and we are Dut ~ere to prove t~it Downtown Nort~ wants to be • flr.t-class neighborhood, too. Thank you. Andw StevenSQn. 12Q waverley Street. P~TQ Alto: I do not share a progert, lfne ~t~ t~e proposed development. and I hope J can speak is i neighbor and not as I directl, iltere5t~ part,. first ~f al1J I vould reall, like te add lilY Ya;ce to 'What was saf-d by the last speaker about the perception put across by the citJ t~ the restdents Qf the nort~ area Qf PITo Alto. TI do t~at~ I would like t~ read a Jittle fr03 the staff report, Page 4. II talking about the lot widt~ exceptions~ it states~ "Furthe~ore~ if the propert, is subdivlded. the res~ltfng lots ~ou1d be Df comparable sfze and haye comparable let ~idth5 to the ~joritJ If Tots ii the surrounding I-I and l-Z neighborhoods. The existing bouse t. be retained and the .lstoric structure to be re~ocated ~Duld aT so be comparable to t~e surroundl~ nelghborbood. bot~ fR te~s of o~erall sfze and in relation to their lot size.-Pfooey. ~at is nonsep.se. It;s not (orrect to stirt .rtth~ and eve~ it ~ere correct, why sho~ld you perpetuat2 something that the <Ity ~as alr.ady .aid Is not the wil t. go I. the f.ture. Why 'al. just because It Is Nort_ Palo Alto. It is o~ay? Why say just because It is ;1 an area of frregular lots. ~ can go a~ead and do ~hat ~e ~an~ ~th variances? That h not rfgM. The ,taff report allows that the on 11 w;able ilter,ative for t,i, development for the sewer lfne is construction of 160 feet of sewer ~al~ down Pal. Alto Avenue. T,at f. goin; t. cl.,e Pil. Alto Avenue for the perfod of constructloD. whfc~ I suspect ~ll not be triYial~ T~at is an i.pol'tant choke pDlot there and traffic flow through that neighborhood, You are goIng to •• ke a real mes, during that time. Staff .ays that i. t~e most liteTJ ans~er. There Ire others possible. ThirdlJ. is a resilIent on Waverley Street and one ..mo 1 ives fa Ue inmed'iate area of the Major portfon of tree trimming that ~ould be done on Vaverle1 Street~ t~at is one Qf the finest t~ings about m~ nefghbor~ood and one of the finest thfng. abcu! the ,lace ~ere J live. It is one of the things that I, specill to me about ~1 home and my environment. Vou Gre talting about major damage thit probablJ von·t recover during the period that J am t~ere. J reill, Uink that Is a ~ad tradeoff f.r a ~,ouse tr,at i, going to be $queez~ onto an extra small lot, I bouse that is not going t. fit irc~itect~ral11 wfth its neighbors. and i house t~at fs going ta <reate an increased density il an area t~at Ilready has i serfous proble~ wit~ parting and access~ T~ank you. Jenean (ampos. 436 Pilm Alto Avenue, Palm Alt~: T~e one issue that no one seems t. ~.ve addressed at !~is point Is the money out of my pocket as a -13- L • I I I f I • , , , \ \ \. -..,. \ ~ ' .. ~, ;:~, .~:. " \~",;;,~,~~~I, , , t_ il' , f:: i -I - taxp,yer. [am~C:;>t.fS pOimt, under the a5sumpt~that the Cit, of Palo Alt. is going t. pay for the cotting back of tr •• s. rhey are going to pa, for the reac.ol of the house to the other l.t. Is~. Trailer going t. Incur these costs? I do not have anything further to say. I ~ave not heard a.yt~lng about the money and .. quit. concerned about that. Also, agree wlt~ e,eryon. who spoke before me. I a. horrified at this. [t Is IS ~orr1fl1Dg as our troops befng across the ocean. Mart "«nev1". 2~ Waverley Street. Palo Alto; My house is located right at the center of Johnson Part. The trees that ar. going t. be cut back ore directly I. front of ~ house. I just bought the house i. December, and one of the .af. reasons I bought It was for its location and the beautif.l canopy of green. I was reall] surprised to hear that the citl would consider <uttfng these trees back. I deffoit.l, believe it is going to lower the value Qf ~y house It some polct. J do not care to gamble with playing leggQ with structural pieces and t~en a year or s~liter. say. ~hoop$~ t~ese trees did df~. I think it lS ridi'~lous~ and fs defilitelJ gofng to hurt not on11 me and my immediate n~ighbors~ but everyone fl Pala Alto ~o comes to t~at area, rfd~s their bikes ther~, waTks Along the street~ and enjoys t~ose trees. Thank you. Chainnan Marsh: Since [ hawe DO other card~ fro~ members of the publjc~ I ~lJ (lose the public bearing and retura this item tQ the planning corrmission. CQFmjssfoner C.11eR: Would you ~lease 1;~e us thl legal definition Qf i substandard lot. ~s. ea.e, [t fs le.s t~an sa feet II width, or le.s than 83 feet deep, and an area less than 83 percent Df t~e .i.fmum area required by the loning of the parcel. That Is substandard. There fs a gr.J area between ""at Is stondan! and wht is substandard. There is lInd of a nonstan~ard that does not Rit. It II either defflltion. Commissioner e.llen: So t~is one falls in t~at 9fa1 area. eYes) Commissioner Hicsc': Assu~ing that we were to recommend ewerything that fs requested tonight, and t~e city council approved it, as well. -mere ift the co~ditfon5 is it stated t~at this ~istorlC structure t~at would be .aved onto thfs propertJ would be retlined fo~ any given period of time? I know Conditfon 112 states that it $~all be restered to use as a single-fami1, residence. but is tr.ere any conditfon that will require that t~fs house be retained for some gfV~R period of time ? Mer Ifmne~JU1: That goes back tD the ~istorfc Preservation Ordinan(e. Since t~e structure is i (ateg~ry Two, if it is not lopped off, [ presume it would be retitDed as a Category Two strutture. As such. if a demolitf~n perlit ~ere applfed for 1. the (wture, the same provisions ~o~ld applJ as appl, fa the curre~t round, t~at fs, the ~istoric Resources Boa~ would revfew such an application and could re(ommend that a moratGriu~ be ,llced on t~at demo1ftion, up to one year, and the council could act on such. recommendatfon. The bottom line ;s t~at the ~rovisions of the hfstoric preservation woald appl, to a significant structure, wbfc~ this structure 1s, as a Category TWD. Commissioner ~frsc~: But yoa said the bottom line is that it could onlJ -14- • '> "' , ""'l--' ~( ;" \ " , \ \" \ \ ..... ---- .. , be retifned for .. 'year or so. if SOfDeone was really deteralined to demolisb it. Mr-I1mmttliD: Atcordl~g to the c~rrent provisions in the ordi~ancel that is correct. ~$sfQner Christensen: To follow t~at i little further, if t~fs were t. be ,et~ upon and the "rranees granted. and so .. thing happened to the ho~se ,. transit sa that it did not ~ake It to the new site, the warlan(es run with the land, and presumably. tne owner could then take advantage of t~e Yir1ances without t~e historic house. !s, Lytle: Tbe variances refer~n,e tbe Flans t~at are submitted. The ,lans are fer that ~ouse» so it lS conditfoned upon t~e p~esence of the house. (ommlssfoner Christensen: What if something happens to the house 11 tranSlt? '5. LytIc! I would assume t~at ;1 could n~t be executed. The ~arjance would not rematm valid. Commfs$joner (hristensea: What about t~e subdivision? ~s. lytJe: That is another ~atter. "5. (a$e: The subd;Jision is not conditioned O~ the bouse being on the lot. r~rs a package. The co~it;ons are not set out separatel,. The Subdi,isfon Nap A~t rea11J rYl~s 5ubdi'lsions, so I ~ave ad~ised staff t~lt tfle subdhisfon itself has tel stand on its own. Tbey feel it does,. too. Commissioner tbrIste~~n: So the staff would recommend the subdivision. rven without the other part of the package. if someone came i. and ~anted t. subdivfde the lot thIs way? "so lytle: As you saw from exhibfts put up tonight on that area, there are lots of SO-foot Tots f& that vici~it~. It is not an unusual lot width i. the older part of town. The property is more t~an the normal, minlmu~ lot size. It exceeds tnat for two parcels. Tne existing ~ome on the property does exceed the fAR, but the reasons 1t does so ~ave to do wit~ its ~;gh~ pedestal (oundatfon and sub-area; It 15 four feet eff the ground. s~ t~at its basement area is included; and its attic space is i.eluded, !>eeause it has , very ~19h. pitc~ed roof and, lot of thJ~-floor equfvilent as a res61t of that. Those are grounds t~at, durfD9 our 1·1 hearing, we repeatedl1 said ~ou~d be considered as exceptional and extraordinary circumstances 1! trying to acc~date t~e older homes i. P,lo Alt.. It v.s not reall, our j,tent, i. settIng the floor area limits, to ~arm the e~isting homes thro~ghout the community. It is simpll that you could not writ! a set of regulations iround those homes because t~ey war~ 50 widelJr Commissjoner ChristeRsen: Tbat was I discwssion designed to allow the; to i~rov. or expand. It w.s not • discussion desIgned t •• llo~ the. t. subdiwfde, Ind t~erefore have too bfg i house, and then put anot~er house OD another lot .. ·15· • \ . I i I .-,-~ ·1 I . .... ~,,.;;.---ff.lf 'W" 't '. -, "$~ lytle; Yes. I understand that, but w! ~ave approved lots that dD not meet .flfmus lot wtdt~s ;1 several c;rcumstances. i~ my experience w\th t~. city for the la,t 1-1/2 years, If tho,. lots reflect eXi,ting nelghborbood patter ••. To!s property doe, that. Cgmafs$fontr Byber: ~. Zimmerman, can you give a brftf description of a Category Two stroctore? ftc. Zimmerman; It is one of t~e two categories of significant stru(tures. the other obyfoosl, being Category One. [t is osua11y a category representfng unfque archit!ctural stlle~ either to the region or locally. If it's not done by a pro~inent architect, it ~as been designed and does reflect an establfs~ed architectural style and bas not been sign1ffcantl, modifIed oyer time. CQmrnfsslQner t,lleo; To follow up on Commlssioner Huber's question to Mr. Zimmenaan~ the house was just recently placed i~ Category Two. as I recill. SiI months ago. ft was f~ Category Three, ~as it not? Mr. Z;mmtnnan; That was back 11 1985 w~en it was reclassified. Co.missfoner ~1r$C~; What other lots were (Dnsfdered, il additfon ta t~is one? eS r l~tle: The other propErtJ that ~as been dist~ssed is one of the well site properties on ~fddlef!eld Road. ~;oner Rfrsch: I thought I s~ i (omment fA the materfal tonig~t t~at the city coyncll tYrned that one down. ~s. lytle: That vas the Middlefield Road .e11 site. There .as some dfrectioD for stiff ta look iBt~ that site preliminarily. and ~en i proposal was recerved fro~ I private party to relocate the house. the counc11 directed staff not to continue to pursue that option. Commrss;oner Sfrsck: Where fs that ~el) ~!te on ~;ddlefield? "5. tytle; It does not have an addrESS. It is just above Ca1iforaia Ayenue at lineal. and Middlefield. COmmissIoner Christensen: There has been no disposition of the well site 00 ~iddl.fl.ld. There .as so .. talk abcut it being subdivided i.to two ~ltes. and talt about warrous options. ~, Zimme-tmin: That is correct. There has beeA no city disposition af it ilt tllis time~ (~aI~an Marsh: As i footnote to that, ~y understanding Df the council's discussion of that site is that it .as predicatod on toe idea that lhe lot would be split 'Ita two pfeces and that the placerneRt of this house would the~ requIre ,ariances. There ~aJ be an optio~ to leep it on one ~arcel. Coninissioner (,lleR: I iUI iI little uncomfortable ~itJ! the process ~e are going through. I hear from the cit] attorne1 that the subdiYlsion slind. eD its own. If we ~ote for thfs t ~ven though it is supposed to be a -16- • '"):~)~i~ ''''i- ./~ \ "'-.., " "':'>', , J I o o paciage i~ the pac«age comes unravelled, th! subdfwision ~ill neyert~eTess sta~d on its own~ The variances ~IY not, but the subdiwision will. Is Uat correct? Ms. Clse: I suspect t~at that is exactl, ~ight. The subdiwision would stand, even if the varfances did not. The OD1] reason it is here as a paciag! is that the ordinance al1o~s the zoniog admflistrator to send the whole thfng along tD you, rather than dealfng ~ith t~em separatel,. It is an expedIent t~rng to dQ. Yes, the subdfwisioo would go 0"* purs~ant to the "ap Act~ even if, il fact, the variances ne~er ~ere used. CPmmissiqner Hfrst!: It would appear that if the s~bdiYlsion is valid. then the varfance at least for proposed lot Il would ~ave t~ be a.fltainedJ because it applies to the eXlsting ~ouse. Ms. Cast: PrcbablJ th! yarla~e that applies to the eXlsting bouse vould 5tlll be t~.r •. V. are onl, talking about .ariance. t~at rel.te to the ,lacement of the n.~ hou.e. Commissigner Chrfstessen: I want to address one ~ther (oncera not yet .entioned. Agafl , t~is iovolyes tne loss Qf rental units, w~ic~ staff has not tllk~ about. Ve are loslDg the rental units OD the property Where the ta~se currentlJ is to make roo~ far a new development t~at is not going ta be an affordable project, for the ~ai. part, and ~;th t~js proposal, partfcllarlJ ~t~ the r!Quirement that the1 convert both houses tG siDgle-'~ll, Ise, we are lOSing rental units on t~at pro~ertJ also. (OMmlssjgner Beecham: To folla. up o~ a portion Qf Commissioner ChrfsteRse~'s questfons, on tne third floor equivalent. how muc~ of that coal~ be fl.t,hed off is li.lng space? "5, lytle: [t fs DOt a thircf-floor eQuiv,alent. It is acttn:l1, tne attic arU. [t Is 1.381 square feet If floor irea that exceeds 11 feet ill neight .nd Is counted tow.rd t~e three levels of t~e nou,e that count. ~e do not knaw ~ow muc~ of t~at is fimis~ed Dr unfiljs~ed. COmmlssioner Hirsc~: What about the basement? How muc~ exceeds there? ~tl1lt: The basement ~e measure at 1,100 square feet. Commissioner (.ltto: I think the nefghborhood ~iS made a ~ery convincing Clse thIs eveRing. There is 11W1Ys I dilemma ~hen you want t~ preserve a .lstoric structure, partfc~lar I Category Two structure~ and t~ls commission has been ~ery S1mpathetic to the preservation of suc~ structures. But one ~as to balance t~at wit" the citJ neritage and the enyironmentll CQst ta that heritage of trees aDd ~;t. the cost Qf moving t~1s ~ouse to that new location. I a~ not pers~aded t~at the ffndings can be .. de -the exceptions requIring t~e adjustment of t~. widt~ of t~e lot, whfc~ res~lt$ fl two smaller lots. and creating i noncompl1i~g hous~ with the addtd FAR. [ven if the trees ire ~ 29 that need to be trimmed* I thfnt that fl I perfod wneR trees all o~er the cit, are suffering from stress, if you come bact t~ this cit, after hawing be~~ away for awbile~ it is very. ~erl n~ticeable. The Arboretum has ~any trees that are dying. At ~1 own fQrner ha~se. the leaves Qn t~e trees ~~ed t~ stiY on there until the first week i, December, and t~ey are ill f.lling off right now. I ~o belfeve t~at t~ls cost of t~e canopy of trees is unacceptable, ·11- • ! I t ! \ \ , ' ·.---li -f: , because it af(eC~anYt ~any rfsidents. It lffe~the c~aracter of the (1tl. and [ do nGt feel it is justiffed for ~aYing this particwlar subd1vfsfon il one 1ocation. [am goin9 to vote aga;~st the proposal. ~: CQmmJssfoner Callen: I therefore recommend to the city co~n'il that ~e dlsapprOv"e the prel i~fnar1 map tor the reasons gh'en and the f~abtlit1 to make the findings required by the ordinance. ~: By CommIssioner Hirsch. COITIplssfgne:r Hfrsch: ] cbvious11 sllare CDmlfss;oner culTenrs conments, .n~ .he stlted her tas. very well. When I think back to my chtl~ood, I grew up ill I town that bad' beautiful tree ca,10ples. !III lilY adult life, J have alw~s tried to ~ove to i~ area that ~ad that ambience. Onfortunatell. I live 1ft th~ southwestera portion of Pa10 A'to~ ~€re we do not ~ave tree canopies like t~at, and I ~;ss them. I should a1so say t~at we ~ad an absol~telJ gorgeous tree on my neighbor~s propert] be~lnd us, I rather large tree. whic~ be unfortunatel, cut down. My w1fe and I were .altlng the other mignt and passed t~at spot, commenting on bow muc~ we .issed that tree. S~ I empathize with s~me of tn~ comments made tonfg~tJ and I s~are the~ only too readil). I, too, would like to save that historic structure, but I thfnk the price is muc~ too great. I would 'ike ta see alternative s;t~s explored for the saving of the bouse. but at t'ts moment, ~e ~ave I partictilar proposal to ~owe the ~lstorfc structure \0 a ~iven site. and I simpl, cannot support that, 11 view of the cost to the c~tJt not a ffnancial cost. but tne emotional, ~sychological. ambience cost. as ~ll is the damage to the trees from whJch they ~ay never recover. As one gentleman stated. it may change t~e nature and feeling of that partfcalar area for th~ rest of t~e time ~e is fm Palo Alto. or maybe even for the rest of ~is 11fe. Cntssiorter ChrIstensen: I -will support tne motTOPl, and] concur ..,iUl the c-orrrnents of Ill' two fellow commissioners. [also want to express a cancer. t~at relates to t~e parcel map and t~e variances. I find it hard to believe that we ~ould accept this parcel map ~thout the paclag~. I am concerned about grantfng it with the current conditfons. It reali, is giving I huge ~n~fit to the partic~lar propertJ owner_ Whether he can save t"e Ilouse or not is sti 11 somewf'lat questfonab1e. ir:l ~y IIfnd. Hlis is a tough lssue, but I (ome down on the side of sawing the trees and of not approving i parcel map t~.t reqUires 50 ~any varjan~es and speclil <ircumstances that will stand with the land, whatever happens to the exfstfng hotlse. Comrnissfoner Betcba!: I also ~1} support the motion~ but I would like to reaind both the audience and tne commission t~at w~ether or not any fnd1wfdual receives a huge benefit or whether an fndiwidual happens te be a ~omeowner or a developer. or ~~ether an indiwldtlal is a good neighbo~ ar • bid Qeighbor~ that s~ould not affect our decisJon on the facts ~f the s1hation. Commissioner "azfer! W;t~ I wife who is in art ~istorfan and very fmwolved with preservation i~ t~e elt,. I certafllJ respect and apprecfate the consideritfons that many hawe voiced throughout t~fs process te tr} and protect t~it house, but I, too. ltke ~any of the people ~ere tonfght t (in understand t~e meaning of the loss cf ~any large trees on an l"dhf~"a1. Untll hst year, oy street had. )ovely row of 5~· t. ·IB· \ • \ , \ ' . ., . \ . ' \ . . , I b 1 - • ;·'·:~·r .... / '" ~'i::l:;:::;~:'l:&;';i~;:~i;~~;::~:--I th~. I suspe<t that ~ore than one tret is going to be lost to tbis. so [ ~I~e I proble. with tritoQ to save one h~use t~at not too many people will see i. one corner Df t~e clt,. ~h;le elf~inatin~ or substantill1J damaging I su~stant~.l number of trees# so I, too. will support the motion. Cpmmjssfgner Hyber: J will support the motion, is well. AT though one can make I lot of arguments as to whether it fits the tarianee or not, it is essential}, a qyestfon Qf preservl~ a ~~use D~ I tree or trees. If we were DOvlng t~ls house • ~alf • block. I mlg~t be inclined to go along with the 'IrJances to preserve the ~ouse. but 11 this instance, when we ~ould be doing immeasurable damage to i great number Gf trees. It Simply is not worth it. I will support the motion. Chafrman "arsb~ J will ~ake that unanimous. We ~ave spoken, bot~ through the public comments to the questIons and through t~e comments up here, to i number of tenants on i n~~ber of different ispects of this application. I, .e~ the nest baslc~ fund~"til issue is that im order to grant the wariances required ~ere, we would hav~ to be able to state that the granting: of the application wolJld not be detrlmental or hjurious to propert1 or improvements fl the ,'einity. It is i~compre~ensible to me that we could e~er ~3~e that finding, gfveR the lind of documented damage we would incur to neighbarbood pro~erties ~y the ~ovement of the bouse to t~e location. I ~'ld like to c~nt briefly on the proposal from t~e developer t~at he oight cut off the top of t~e ~o,se and mo'e 001, the botto~ of it. I thfnt we are .11 prettI much f. a9reeme~t up here, although unspoke"~ that it wo.ld essentlo11, e"scIl,te any ~istor!cal r.1.e of that bouse. It might be • good deal fo< t~. developer, b.t II does not s.tisfy .oy of the publIc benefits of t~e project. (onpissfqner Hirsch: Many t~;ngs ~ave been safd about the -developer tODfght~ and I am i little unclear about the facts, and voald lite to go on record about ft. As] understand it, the attempt to find a locatioQ for t~ls ~ad beeR request~d by the city counc'l, and that tne demolition lIontorfum period lias expired', so flas the developer been attempt1ng to cooperite with the city iN findi~g i suitable location? ~~ lfmmttmin: Yes, the developer and the applicant for the ,arianee. CommissfQner Hjr}C\: I woul~ encourage t~at process to continue fl order to potent loll, find another site that ~ay be ."Ilable, if one exists. MOTION PASSES: Cbairman ~arsb: Is there any flJrther discussion on this notfon! T~e .at10n on t~e floor is to de~y the application i. front cf ~s for I prelf.f~ar1 parcel lIap and accompanying variances. is moved b, CommfssIoner CllleR and seconded by Commfssi~ner Hirsch. All tnose il f.vor. signify Aye! All opposed? T~.t passe, by • 1·0 vot •. ~s. l.tl.: T~I. item is .cheduled for t~e city council on September 24. ·19· t ! I ., ";.;;:,... ~. , \ , \ • \. , • , , --1 " .. '. < < • -.. ' --=1,. '. :'1-; . ,., ',.; • • ~ • ".~ J".' ~".' ... "" -., ~'-.' :.~'~< ", I I j I - , .... -. \ :;-, .. /' '~~~ __ .'~~" "''''";'",-~: ... :;_-~ : ,""-«~ ...-",~> -'"'r~"'r.,: . -.-? :,;:-:·1-¥3,."_ .illL~, Varianl?e Application 0 422 Palo Alto Avenue Filing Documents contain incorrect information. If variances are approved as written. then the variance process is based on flawed information and can be challenged. Palo Alto homeowners who suspect that lot variances are judged in a capricious manner will no longer have doubts. Thell8riances are not necessary to prevent hardship on the owner of the property because the property already is built up to and beyond the allowable F.A.R .. Conclusion: the owner already has full use of the property. To deny the right to double the normal usage of the property cannot be considered an unreasonable or unnecessary hardship. The granting of this variance will be detrimental and injurious to property in the vicinity. ... . -, _ •. T~f, \ \ ---_._------. - o o Present Lot at 422 Palo Alto House A Lot Area = 14152 sq. ft. House A = -4778 sq. ft. l carport Apartment {not 14253, 14425. etc} (plus portions that were not counted) Roor Area pennitted for the lot = .45'5000 2250 + .30*(14152-5000) 2745 4995 House A plus carport, but not counting apartment, is within 220 sq. feet of maxllmlm FAR. before subdivlcling the lot H the apartment Is included. the structures exceed the F.A.R. 'L \ . • <',. , . • , I 1 . I .~ ..•. ;~ .. '",.-" ,-' . .... -.. . - o Other Inaccuracies total number of occupants 6 existing size structure 3000 expected vehicles daily , , 4 • o (more like 11) (more like 5000) (more like 6-8) .. '" .; ~ - :~- , - -4 I , • i , I • ,I • - o The Trees o The environment assessment report says "no significant impacts were determined to result ... " • \ It also says: '"The Holly Oak and Chestnut will require severe pruning and may never return to their existing size and shape. The Holly Oak may need to be removed to accommodate the move. The Chestnut may not recover." Certified arborists have warned that the other 50 trees that require pruning will be affected as strongly as the Holly Oak and Chestnut. How can the Planning Commission accept a report, based on this information, that says "no significant impacts were determined ... "1 ~--" . C -,-, ~ ~ -----,., -'." ", • , ~'.' il -. f' - /' o o A Simple Request Please respect the wishes of the 300 residents who have already signed a petition protesting the move. Try to avoid making a mockery of the zoning laws. , \ \ - ''"'.' BARRIE D. conE "net ASSOCIA T["!;' Horticultural. Couulhnts. 401-.3'.)..IQ52: 13')]. Su-it &cal., \.DI: ea.~ CA. 95ClO o .... fENDED COPY DAIFDAUGllST 1. 1990 ,'-- COMMENTAfIY ON THE AFFECTS OF TlIE PROPOSED TREE PRUNING ON WAVERLEY STREET, PALO ALTO, CAUFORHIA Job #7-90-231 Prepared allhe Request Of: Mr. ancI Mrs. Oaig 101 W~y Slraet Palo Mo, Carlfomia 94301 Site VIS~ b)' Barrie D. Coale: Jutj27,1990 • I r I ! . - o COMMENTARY ON THE AFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED TREE PRUNING ON WAVERLEY STREET, PALO ALTO, CAUFORNJA summary I has been proposed tJat a historic house be moved several blocks nor1h on Waverley Street to Ihe p1c!ion cI Wave<1ey Street and Paro Mo Avenue 10 be re-siled two lois east c1:M1 interseclion. .., !he process c1!his house moW1g, i Wll be necessary 10 severely p,une 40 street 1reeS. Since \his pruning Wll have 10 be done by 0cI0be< 1 at !he latest in order 10 accomplish tle plamed move, I1e \Tee pruning will have 10 be done between late summar and faJI. This report is designed to define !he damage which wouk1 be done 10 two specific trees cI hi list cS<mg iiaI ac!MIy_ TIle specmc trees in question are one Aesculus ~ -Red Harre Chestnut located 60 fee! easI cI tle mersection on the south side cI the street The other tree in question is a Q,gIrcus ~ -Coast live oak located directly at tle end of Waverley Street on I1e was! side i1 fltS-~ Both cI Vlese \Tees are excellent specimens cI fleir species. The Red Horse ChestnuI is. in fact. mentioned in a pubrlCaflOl"l pubrfSl1ed for Ihe City cI Pare Alto. TI1e reason Jar obiectinQ 10 \his ~ is Ihe extfema!y severe pIU1ing !hat Wlll be necessary in order to aJIOw fie house to be moved hough !his mersection, to say nothing of fie pruning flat Wll be necessary on ~ oIhe< IreeS on Waverley Street. TI1e damage done by \his pruning wil be so severe to each cl Vlese two trees, in partie liar. tJat flej{ real value wi! have-been IOtaRy lost from tie viewpoinl cI accep!ed tree evaruation procedlKes. 1. $Q'£!!jc Objections Pruning !he Red Horse Chestnut tree n late summer or Ian will be as damaging as any pruning could possibly be since !hat is VIe ~me when Icf:age is producing carbo/1ydrates Jar transport into Ihe 1runks and roots Jar storage for the loI1owing year's production clloflage. The tree is sited n a 24' wide parl<ing strip and has a 22-1 ~ trunk diameter_ Obviously INs tree's root buttress encompasses the entire width cl tle par1<rog strip. Unfcn.nately, I1e recent pavemert repair has produced a severe verticai C\A mo !he buttress roots on "" east side, and as a resul\, 'hI1ree is already stressed. l is only flanks 10 tie deOlCated Cdfe by the Craigs \hal flis tree is as heavily COli ered wi'11 JoIiage as I is. The extensive pruning plamed as part cl hs procedu-e will severely affect !he tree's abtTIt)' to oontinue 10 assimilate weter and minerals Jar transport 10 !he canopy. L • , , , . '"" ; -". I - ( i • i t 2. .. o COMMENTARY ON THE A"FEeTS OF THE PROPOSED TREE PRUNING ON WAVERlEY STREET. PALO ALTO. CAUFORNIA Page 2 The piCtures Of lhis tree Wll show a perfect dome Of IofI8Qe and twigs solidly coveMg a 39' diameter. petfac1Iy round. peffec!ly mned crown. The aes!hetk: damage 10 flis tree Wll be so severe IhaI its value would be lost The enclosed Tree Casualty and EvaJualioo Report shows its Walue 10 be $5.334 m. but its actual value 10 V1e site IS far more \han Ihat and is n effect, a vir1uaI!y ncaJcu!aIJIe value due 10 V1e re!alionsl1ip lhis tree has 10 h Craig home. I predlcllha! !he e><lreme pruning p-oposed Wll severely shock Ihis Cree. whicl1 has already been stressed by earIie< drastic root cutIing, and l Wll requite several years 10 allow normal vigor 10 EtVeI1 begin 10 occur. This does not lake i1to account 1h& permanent pI1ysicai aesthetic damage IhaI Wll be created. I strongly suggest Iha!!his cree not be pruned as mended, and especially not at lhis most destructive Of times. The second Of Ihese trees, !he CoasI live oak aI!he merseclion Of Waverley Street and Palo AlIo AVeNJ8 is a 23.6" Qameter InJn/( tree Of approximately 25' n height and 40' crown s.,-ead. This tree has been pruned on the lop Of its crown over a period Of years for line cteamg. but unlike most line Cleamg pruning, has not left S!ubbecf CI.IIs in V1e lop Of !he cree. The tree's current form and appear ance are exceplionally fine and create an irreplaceabfe canopy or IofJSge at the end or Waverley Street This cree's value is approximately $6.398.20, but ' .... e value or shacfng and amlJiance IhaIl produces for lhis i"rtnediate neighborhood 'oukl cet1ain/y not be purchased lor IhaI price. I IS ncomprehensitlte 10 me Ihat Palo AlIo, !he ci!y wtuch is looked up 10 by oIher cities of mid CarJfornia for its tree prese<Vation hist<J<y and its tree-cowred streets, would even cons1der allowing !he damage IhaI Wll be cauSed by !he necessary pruning n order 10 move 1h& house down lhis street This seems so inconsistent with the histo<y Of Palo Mo and its reputa1ion lor love Of trees. =·s r does not speci!ically address all !he other trees which wouk! also be severely since many Of \hem are axcurrent trees with an uPIi!l/1t form. which WOUld be damaQed by Ihis heavy pruning Of rateral branches, Ix.( rather !he decurrent trees. like CoasI Uva Oak. Red Horse C!1esfrU, whiCh wi) be e1Iec1ively ruined. This is not me<rt 10 rnpry a Tacl< Of respect for preservation Of a fine hou .... e. SOCI1 as Ihat proposed for moving. but only questionS whether !he only answer is 10 move !he house down Ihis street llYoug/Ilhis row of trees. Respectfully submitted, SDC:m 8anie D. Coate Enclosures: Tree Evalua!ion Report • • "-"'!i -'. ~~. ~,,-.-. c • \ J • , \ \ \ \ , . .,.. ..\ , ., ,I I I I I I , l i i 1 , ! 0 1.OCAnoN .--Hl1 Waverley Street. on Pale Alto Avenue , , • OPnlEE Cty.T ...... Palo Alto atatt Cal i fomi a. ZIp 943<l1 OWNER'S NAM! City of Palo AIt, \Il1<AM1 OF 'nIU COmmoIl 'ad Horse Chest:nut SCIon1lllc Aesculus carne!! o C ESCFtIPnON OF ClSIIAI.J'Y Tree to be severelz: erunee on the Yest side i 9; Seet e1t1bu • ~ .................. ...... ~ ...... -.-' /0 1'IIo1~ 0 ,.. 0 na I m cu...J~ c.t. Sept. 1990 AEP\J.CI:MEH'" COST' I'OO-.dl if trw can be repEac.d. em'" =-an~ Pf"OC"d t~ No. n I (!) o <:AN nil!!! BE "fFAJAEO !il,.. 0 roo I __ on; It will require 20 or more years of t'"Ju<:3.ted' pruning ta regrow iI crcWl!~ This is elassed as 100\ loss, COsT OF 11_ c..e.-nodl I IIIl s P!llCEHTAG£OFLOSS JoFTiA IlEPAlII I IFO% PAo<:el) TO NO. 311 1m '" TOT ..... l..O$S .t.flEO. RS'''''' I _.01"'"",,". __ 2S') [91 .. ~--'When tbis proportitrn of a tre~'s 'TOWn is reDOVed~ ~b. ISA recolllll1ends it be considered. • total loss .. .' &ASIC TIlE!: V A WE eEl'ORE -'D.J\ISTM errs E2] F1.-;ion&! no.. !ICC I rn Clanno. I I ~ Qua ,,",u. 100 '" I OI.a.mti_ of trur11i1 "at tin .. I'leiqftt (4'& ~ B 22.6 -.. i ; , , j ! j ! I i , • I ! • i • i • , J I • ! At .. of '""" ... bru:st hli;i'rt § 401.' lQuan inC::"I~:s 1 Suic u. YIoi .... ;:.~m= S 21. --.:.o! .1 IQ. tne1'ln EQUAlS ... I 1.& •. ,31. e-l d_ )00 % -... • __ liP U-... """ 111611 1'% ~_ ... ~_. , .... 'to GUle..:; /cr term" ... ~ C .. ,..gI",1 ~I:I'~ II DII~ :1 .. areer tG;.,. .... 110. Of " .... ~ ~ 21 ~ F~ "' ... ID"U ....... IHI_ .. ,... ... ';li Q"wiCIE I'Qr ~1oI1& L IQIJAI.S IlASIC "AUJE \iSIs 27. ! 0,10,811.04 ! I [!lllO .831.M • : • \ \ ,. • r .--- I I -c-' , ,'. 1 . ,', '\ ", ~:"",}gr-'.' :~_,_,,_, :OC __ -","_ I - ~oIcnumf .. ."c. halfi"G' lOA of bart and/OI a"ft9 c.untllura Of lIlftOUM.of cross .ecttonal C:KaY _ _. Ui-of bale 'IaI';' o • ID 10% '00 to 110% 0'10"._ . IICto8D% 8:: :: I 0-_ o .'" Ill,. 0_ ~ ~'~'!~~·~·"'~~"~.~_V!as~cu~~!.!r_t~.i~,~s~u~e~I~O!s.~.~f~t~e~r~r~OQ~t~p~run~~l;n~g~. _________ , ____________________ ' ea.._ ·0-lID 111"" ' Cht=_ a·lS% Cl.3Il\ 0'_ cr_ p~ I ""a...._ _tollC% III '" .,% ~ a% .-. -~ 100 '" I-/I§i 18,66'.83 - i I I • ! ·f ! ! I , , '1 , ! . ""'=,:u;a~l'Y'St*n'hata~~ C&lnaQ1ld roots. 1Cl:s.3 Qf SOil,. umz Rlt. gfrdlrl; .~-r.s. l 0" iIt:DCIrrnU ~'Tai1"'" c;ondn:f~ ~ ... rw logging •• tc.JI -I c::a..& __ 'c41 I I ~ a a",ti . 100 10 8<)'" , o ,111:1_' IIQ to 10% i O~ n% I Q 30.,.. IS'(.. t o~· ~ ! o 4I!% 10%' . 0._. C% i I " 7S % - • I '. ~::-, t + l t , • , , ! f I ~ , .. .. \ I \ " ..J --'-, II Ii Ii I \ ;. . . PHYS Cl>ock oJ! ...... pply o '-l"oIig~ o _lclIa;. o _ ,0&1 """" o .-leaf slzlo 0 __ .. _.10_ 0 __ ... O ..... ot_ CAL ANO PATHOLOGICAL CONcONS o en-"""''''''''''0\ o in,octo {conI1oI1"'Oj o "","""""..,ta1 atreos o ..... II .. r. ott, 0. __ ,_ o _~'-'" 00"'- \ , o Impropor caro o no OPP""'"' reductiOM (00 .... 100% in _ 221 ~ ....... ct.ecQd I\ofII8 ~ _.d\od .. ,''''-I'IICIIIdng !he odJ\I&WOI. _ to § 9Q '" AdJ_WO<1h I '6,498.62 I _roductJon I 90 % I oquaJ • § ,5.84a.:7~ ..... .. .. . nplanatlOn:. LOCA'TlON evALUATION -a-..", .... _ ._ ·.ft ._ . ~ ------_. -_ . ~'.""dage at...at _ --. - O~OIhl_~ ~100'll. O~_d....u.J~ 811-__ -0_ -15-85% o PublIc OIUl--.:illl -. . 711-80"' . -o MIoooIurn oi _ . -eo-so ... a GotfCounle. ~lcIII1y--·110'11. k3C1IY_"' __ '-.' --.. -eo-80% 0_ .... 101_ f --110-70% - O.-.rOllllp_ -. -I!G-70% o 1ndusttIaJ.,.. -511-70% o Out-oklty I\I ........ Y"'----_Ill"" -O ___ } - -. monago4 0lN& notln_ » . .0% o DonN forMt _ 10-20% Adl«Stod VI""" l 15,848.76 r Urr.es location walutl f ....:u % I ~U"'" ·IBS~.679.01 _D npjanaftan: UFe EXPecTANCY evALUATION Condltloo ~ only ~ ur.~ "'''"tfIIg o &canon. <M< 30 yu.w 9(1.100% OGood =yu.w eo. 110'" o FIIIr'ogood 15030yeata eO-eo% a FaIr 1G-15~ "l-110% a Poorto 'oj, So.Oynro 20-00% o Poor. rap'a docnn. 0.. S), •• rs I). 2lJ'" AdjUSted worth_I $ .... 679.01 'times nfllll pPeCtanq 1 95 I. I Iq~ra: I~ 14.445.01 ..... -.xplan .. tion::. L - • \ \ \, . '>-- \ ~... \, , ~ .... - • , . \ \ , ' AOOT1O NAL WORTH ;. O.J\JSThl ~ ~ tJge I'IU addJth;:nal vaIu,. suCh an1I~ $hade and/or. eocflng .ffect 10 )hin; arau,. nee: c:on:sttrqtlatt ilfurtnQ ~ld morrUta. .. ~..-apwtlc; futn:tlOn.. Krtening of \,W'IaighUy scan ... privacy. tluneJ'fng of sound. wind or de01'fs. I!'tc. EHTEl'I ~Ell WOR'Tl< .... g.I~t1(Jft 01 ~ wotth: Tbis tree Drovides a critic~l~ of t~e Craig home. and seasonal wind prote<tlon. PAlO APPAAISER'S INFOJIMATIOI< SUMMARY I~ ,0 ... 40' wide sun screen on tbe 'West side Cal. 1/28/90 n. ____ ................ ___ ... 1&AOC ~ .............. 'It"'-"la OJ 1'MIS 4.MQ cnto ~ __ ., _ ~ • T_ ... ~-.. ..... -. ...... _~ ........ ____ • _____ .....,. .... _ ....... ~..Q. .. "'--01--. -..- 'r - I . ~,,--,. '''fr ..•. " \ \ • ,- . TRERASUALTY AND EVALUATlOQEPORT III t.O<:AT1OH A_ Corner .PUo Alto AYenue &J1d Waverley Street (northwe~t) OFTlIEE Clly. Town Palo Alto SWIt Ca.llforua ZJp 94301 OWNER"SN .... E City of Palo Alto II] NAME OF TREE COmmon Coast live Od Scionttt!<' Quercus agri fo) i 3- o DESC!W'TIOI< OF CASUAUY Tree to be severely -,pru.nid: 'or "ntDOved __ before OctOber" 1. ~ ............... .......a... ~Itood.~ ........... 10 PI>o1o a 1M 0 no 1m CallUOlly 0 ... Sept. 1990 REPt..lCEMENT COST' c."-0dJ 1I __ ~~ __ c:ootand_'ONo.3Q. 1m mCNC'TREEB£R9_fii_O no J-When t~s p~oportion of .. ca.nopy is removed,.. the tree-is said to "have lost. tota.l value. = OF p,e>.o.tJI (oft.-:!lod) I ,00 $ P'EIIC&KTJ4C.OF I.OSS N'nP. REPAIR. 1 IF Q'II. Pi<OCEElJ ro NO. 311 I[!J "" lOTAl-1..OSS AFl'ER REPAlI\ I _ ...... (N<I.. __ ~ @II ~!att&Uon: -. rID) F4eQiOnai no. Nce I § _Cl .... no. J I § Clan ..... 100 ,. Oi.une'lf of trunt at bt'Ua1 neJgnt ( ........ S 23.6 ind'l .. Ale. ollnudc at DtUat r'lllgtTt § 437.4 lqIWOirId1 .. aaa~ u.. y..d\ul pet SQuatW lnd'l S .... 7. Q-"7.4 sc;. tnC"H EO\IALS os , 1l.!lO.74 1I .... IuD ... -" .... " • "co orr .... I_'!J'>lI'" ~2 1S'tCII_ .. ~\ .... ,.-t.,t.DGU)Of. JOI'"ta~~ .. C~",DIII'I. II~"" t, lftrcluogft 2'1 ill GrG_ ta gm "lIIju .. 01 ~u"'DeI' 2' .. F01 "'101l>-,.a._.-cI tr ..... ~ ... IO GUIDE lor lCl"l'!'lIOla - eouALS SASIC ""'LUI! !§1 S 27. § 'lI.na.74 l§' 1~.&10. 74 , \ \ • . , " f I "-" I ! I f i I •• ,~~ " '. --' :' t' '. ,~;~, \ - " h' • I , . :" . . . -;-.' \, . -,' I ~.~ o1dmunl~ having: 50as of bar5c &nd/0l tfvfnog ca.-nbium or amol.&ntar gQA MCtIonal decay a-._ AdJ ...... -of !>ute ro/u. 0 C to "",.. 1011 to SC%. a 1~",2!)% 90 to 80% "' 025% 7lI% ~; Tl"mK 030% 15% !: a "'I~ 30% 04% '0". OS!%. g", ~, . . " H ~~'·t ~ ~1:!~.1~.'UmeaadJ~.s bule~uei ~S"I~'I~' 1l~22a.21 I , " . I "~ , ", ~oLctawtr.._ -"100< c!&mac0C1 " ~-. . " AdJ ...... --. ·D. atom%.· 100 1090%. o '10' II> :211% 90 toao ... 0-25 ... 7S% QOOWK Q:30%. 1!5% Q"--30%' 0:_ 10% p~ ~ AdJuoUd -1' . I % 1-1'~3 ,8,976,16 11,220,21\ _Cljustmont' 80 ..... . -. . ' ocJanatlon: Line c:learing~ ....... ~ ofroot.,..,..,,~_ dOIMg'" _lOss Of son...,." RI~ girQJlng roots. ""-~condI""" _ watorlOg;!"G. Ole.) . a-k_ AdJ--a 4l1O to,;" 100 to 90% o 1~"'2Il%' 90' 'to 8Cl% ROOT a is" 13% SYSTel4 030 .... I5%- 0"'1% 30% a .a ... '0% 0.50% g" Ad:Iusted ..,ortnj S II • 9':'6~ 16 t ~ adjustment I ...,:0.. I """.1. I [i} $a~078.!>S u~l.a.natiQ~ Street ber.eatb a portion of the canopy. \ - • , \ \ i \ , , -\" . , I I ! PHYSIC)GiCAL mo PA1HOLOOIC .... L CCOlONS . ~ .a lhal apply o re6uc«l tw'g ~ o cfl ....... (con""'''''''l o IjWH 1oII0go o Inoocto (contto/lobloj o &bnOtII'aIloaf ccle< ~_m"'laI_ 0._10&1,13 Q 1UIOWtAb .. lito o poor caJluo ""v.,"" ....... o undoslral>lo ,oaIuIn 0 __ .. , 0_11_ o cthers , \ • " o I4CI< of.,.,. o Imp"'"", core o nc *"_ reductic ... [onlor 100% In na. 221 . . Tn.1IbOve cIIocbd "-"... bHa 'cited .. lurtIW '-'ng U100 odJUItO\I ~ to § ,~ % . . AdIuatodW""" I 1 8.~78.S5 J !!mea roduc:l1an I 90 % I ~ @ 17 .27~.59. -.. ..... D.planatJol't: 1.000TION EVALUATION ~....,- . _ •. ,,*_.Iojo at_ . . . _ -.f' . -.. . . . . . . ' . . -' " OLa I ~ ... bl.-.:a/ ""- O~_nt1al_ a 11111_ . a Publ1cc &DISC """""""iaI ' , , . D_oiparll. . . o Golf COune. ..... togICOIIy -. , 1iIQ"1J-"'-" ' , ' ' " . " -or "-.. . 0_ ... _ D,~_Plen1c ,--0 __ -o 0Ut:-<>kftr b_, .... -. . o __ woodO} 000--, -rnanaQ04---- Adl"';"" w""" I 1 7,270.69 ... " _ tUmM Jocaa~ ~u.l _80'" ,I u"laMtJon::: Condlllon [CbocII onIy_1 Cil E>c<;enont D_ O Fair 10 go«! o Fair o Poo..,o!&if o Poor. rapid' 4Clcnne r----., Ad!usted"Wortt\ S 5.816.5.5 -.. "L - UFE EXP£CTANCY EVALUATION LIfe_nor 0v0<30y.- 2O-30y ..... 1s.3CJya.tw 11).,5_ ~1OYNnI I).. 5yearl ,..-----, times lir. expectancy 100 %' - 110-100,. 811-,10% 75-_ 70-ao'Jo, eo-80% aa-eo'" flO-flO" IICI-10% eo-JlI% SO). 711% _an ... 30-'.0% 10-20% oquaJ_ ... ""lint 90-100% eo. 90% .0. 80'" ..,. 80% 2D--10% a· 20% ' ~Uil{S , . . B 1 5 ,816.55 r-==:------'/ § ss.,81€.SS .., ~ \ \ , :<~i:;I-'" ~ -. ;'.'.' ~,-'i;;_~'''~-_~ . -.";' '-.- :i~f;'~:-. :..--,- i tf 11 • , . , ,. " tI"M has a.:Idrtlol'lal qJu.e., ,uch oraIn" .snad.t andfOt • eoonn; • Dring areas" t\ecr. caSlM!l'V&non dUf"\tl-; cold rnonth:I,. • D'I~de tunctkin. • ::reenin" of ~tIy scenas., prfvaC)'. bLl.rrenng of ICIUnd., wineS 01' del::ltf$. .Ie. ENTER "'CREASE!) WOA'TK 1 0 .. ~~ IXpjaNItJon ~inCtUUd \IiIIOItI'I: T'kis tree adds significant canopy to the street aryl serves 3S a rrit.'T at tbe end of Waverle Street. PAID APPRAISER'S 00" 7j2Sj90 no., .......... ~ III .. __ ... ___ -aIIDII IIIiCI'I lIT ............. 'I ....... 01' '"'IZS ....a on..a fl\..Ir.ItTr ......... _ c.- • ~ ... ~ ....,.... ................... --.... __ ,.. ...................... IoacM.r .. ...,.,.,.,...,. .,.4 .. n.. '""'"" --. c ....... "* . i I , ~J I - f?ed /ict"se cne.t"u.t -loolt-"'3 sudh Sho",~'1 'yerlect[~ ... oc.utd., peri'ed 0 fc, .. m a::t (!Yow"'" - 1i?.&-tkm~_ Ole. t rz,J -loo!. '''J 5Mf,<7;O\-j n"~",,,~ of. co..""'i'j ",It.~ ~rfJ.. i$ 3'1' i ... d ~ ""du I t I ! ," . / • , Co:t.sf Live W -I~!(-"j seutn , I a", ·/~repfat!€dbk ~'H)e>!'<f of {blKl'7e. aJ the U1& of [LbVt..rfl!.'f SInd ~ Livl. lhl: -/ooJ:.i"J, SI1DWIl?J QOWn. 5p~tttd rl t ,'-<1 , , / , • " o o .~~ .. ~~ .. )' ,'"; -·;·:.,~~L'.";-..... -"-~ ..... -.. ~-, .~~. ~t2""" i ''- • , . \ o ... ,.'.,. " ,", , . "" .'\. .'t'_, . ~J ....... 9/1 2/90 To: City 01 Palo Alto Planning Commi"ion Me<:ting Palo Alto, California. from; Joseph &: Got; ClIo ghl 4S1 Ruthven Ave. Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 l L c r -,.' I • Reference: Relocation 01 the boose at Forest Ave. 10 422 Palo Alto Ave. Dear Planning: Commission members .. The foUowin, ",biclt are statements voicing our oplnlon regarding the relocatioa and .ubdivisi<>n 01 Palo Alto Ave. lot are hereby presented to yo." The act 01 subdivision 01 Palo Alto Ave. lot i. contrary to the F.A.R. "'SDlations of the city of Palo Alto and WIll c..,ate • far more oppressive F.AJt. [or that lot. The ",owdillg together 01 these hooses at Palo Alto, Ave. crea!es I neighborhood ambience thaI concel1lS the suroundin8 residenls (ie. parldllgs, congestions, daylighl plan encroachment, ~s 01 trees, elc.). The affecled properties will be 01 • m nel! lower slandards and consequently affects nearby propeny values. Furthermore, I would like 10 mention thai while ago the o,'ercrowding was I big: issue in Palo Allo in «der 10 slOp in<>ompatible and odd baU cOllstrucUons. W'li.y preferreDtial treatme.ts ace beillg considered for the developers? Sillcerely Jcsepb and Goli Cbog: hi. j L - • PaUy I'lsher The neighbors lose their trees and get a house larger than acceptable under city regulations. • -."., ---, a house \ • ., " , ;" I .. .j . I I :.'" "\ Q Pal~ Altn Plan~in9 Commis~ion City of P~lo Alto CallfDrnj~ SeptembeT 12, 1990 Subject: Exception and' Vadance R.e-quest fOT 422 Palo Alto AI,,' .. nu~ Commission MembeTsl This llli'tt~T is tEl demcnsuate that the ~ubject rli'ql:Jpst SM1Jld b'l' refused on the gTotJr:'lcfs of IHln-e:cistillI"lC8' cof .condjtions required to maJc,p the necessary findiq~s~ [0 .ddition the findin9s pTesented i~ the staff repoTt are~ in my opinion: 1) i~ contradiction to Palo Alto~s est~blished practice of ~ariance appro~als, and 2) not ICl complianc .. 'With the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The subject Feql:Jest is complicated and contains many objectional featuTes. This letter theTefore must be lQng. I apologize fGT its length but I think .',,01:1 need to know wf'Iat is contained 11:I'rE'in. The Report and t~e ~.quRst The reqwest is to permit ~ d~~elopeT to subdi~ide pToperty in a man~er which .~ contr~n"y to established building .and zoning rules. .. H'~ argues that it is in t~e interest ~f the Cit~ to proQfde this kind of relief from zo~in9 requlT~9nts since it will ~T~~ide a site for an ~istOTic house~ He also ar9u.s that it wjll not b. detrimental tG the neighborhood. Th~ city staff 9~ner~llv SUPPOTts his request and .rgues t~at it is justified in tn. interest of relocating the ~istoric house. It sho~ld ~e apparent that this opinion is. not shared by many ~eopl., both her. tonight and elsewhere. f'",rther the de .... elop .. T states that he will ereate two corlfoTming It-I lots but his plans aTe not eli-iJr res,arding ultimate dispOSition of existimg f1on-c:onfoTmi~9 conditions. For example the existing housl? to be Tetillirled has three sep.ritte domiciles, utilizing two kitcP,.n5~ Also there is 00 $etb~ck fQT the existins cott~se which the de~.l~peT intends tD r~place with a garage whjle retainiag the t~e non-conforming, zero set-back. Zonin9 ~egul~tioas ~-le h.ve in pIaee a ..... aTietj' of zoning nlles~ Many of Ufi, have found them a ncrisance to WOT~ _Tound and have become frustrated with their ~eemin91y i rrel .... enc. to+ any s-ense. 8u t theTe is no doubt th~t the.'>' play an impoT tan t Tole it! help i rIg moleS the te:. ture of OIJT ci ty.. They ha .... e been developed boy us ror that pUTpose. As an example we can recall t~e recent 5tru~le to devise the r-.A.R~ re9ul~tions to pTotect us from devE'lopeTs who \-,ould damase OUT nei~Thood5, for profit, ~ building o~eT$izeo ~u~es. We all work~d hard to come to an agTeement that was, although a compromise, ac~pted by all. We all then have a Tight to this protection. The same can be said for the Tules regarding. daylight pl~nesl setbacks and lot widt~5 and othel'_ C~mpromisin9 the zoning rule$ is a oreach of asreeme~t ~it~ the Tesidents of Palo Alto and should be done only when it it is cleaT that the nl!gati'Je impact .-1.': 'I 1.-... f 1 > . ~ I,~ 1 1 i ; i t- is small and that compliance is IJl'1fillT to tl'e O ...... !"'~e-T. liJdeeod l..hj§ idE-a i'S embodied ir.. the 'fae:t that tl'le "firldil"l.gs· are part of OIJr m'..Jnic:ipal code • Detrhnent rrom The "taria"cE'~ and Exceptions Th. subject Tequest is not for a ·littl~· ~arianc:@ and the injwry to our ntighbclrh<lod is not slight. The de\,.Jeloper wants tt;) 5'Jbdi· .... lc:e a lot with <!I very l~rge building n~edin9 almost th~ entire lot to comply ~ith the F.A.R. • H~ rE'G-uE'sts that h. be allowed to re-duee the size of tl:E' lot t" thE e.-.tent that he exceeds the F.A.P. .. by 1823 'SqiJare" feet. This. i'5 large-r than manJi houses. It is ludicrous to hold tha~ swch e~cess of floor space will not ~a~e a negatt,",E! eff.ct on the neighborhood. Fwt'ther, the dayli9ht plarJE re~uiremEnts are in paTt tt;) \t.eep de<,.'elc'pers from buildirlg: l'lOU£Eo-;:. E'.xcessi\lely el!)~e t0getheT~ Permitting this ere-ates a feelirr9 of cro' .... dlr,'3 which, though i~ this ca~e not as repu9nant as the fl~or cr~a oV~TageJ d~m~~in9Iy alters the ambiance of the neighborhcCl'd. This is irre;.pectil,,'e of the ddrr:a~S' it does to the o,-'eTshadowed nei~T's of whic.h I om one. n-.e ddm3g'E' to our trees will be e,)(tensf~e and perma~entI~ injurio~s~ The F i rH:h ngs The ~nici~~l Code- Section 18~90.50 of the Palo Alto Mlinicipal Code-contains t~lE' legal state-ment of the findin9s which the zoning aanlnistTiitoT mlJst I"i'lCi'ke-to sr-3nt a .... ariance .. 1 have att~ched a copy ~OT ~Gur reference. The wording of the code is not ambiguous and is perfectly understandable, but M'Jnicipal Code boolc.s are ominous-, technical documents and as-s.uch are not 9~neral1'.) read by those of I;,IS not lawyeTs. We look to the city staff to M-=lp us. This help is in the form -of cons~ltat:i:on and other bctoklets prepared by the ~taff to parap-hras.e .an'Ci interpret~ the cQde. Palo Alto glVi?S out two booklet;; fOT this IJ$e~ They in"e the ·Zonil':l9 Guidebo·ok for the R-l Property (ft..mer and 8uilde-r-and ·Appl~ing for a 1"larianc@·. I offer as sel~-O?\lident that the de,-'eloper sholJld n~t have special pri'..liliilgE', and that these v:;;riClnces must be reQuired t,) ~e~t the same cOliditions for .3j:1proval that the rest of us must meet, or met, when a variance is ~ougtjt .. Finding .1: This-findin9 requires that the property must h3ve extraordinary circwmst~nces t-,Ir-.ich 00 not app"Iy sener31ly to other pr.opErty in the -s.ar:;=, district~ [t is clear that this refers to tMe piece of land. Thiiit is, tt-..:-lot must b-: s.omehow different from neishborin9 lots. [r~ dE-ed this <;;·ame l.Iiew-is e.r:plalned in the if b()ok"=,~~ :.r, ... ord:. :::.nd e:.:amples as foll"".')s: i - ·Zarling GUld-et·I,;,,=,)o:" •... e,"rl<;;-=-·~ 4"':-0. ;':,".:=-=-.;,:":;:- requested is unique·. To describe narrc-w lOot as c<:.mp.;.-red to .a normal with a steep slo~~~ "~,:.~"t,,.' fc.r 1,,,,"",icl1 ·uniqu~W tM~ boo~let refers on~. ar one ~i~~ct~d with a "Applying f"EI"T .iii VariancE'l". Dec:: 5, 1990, initial page- .a :J 30r 1 arlee to aVer,.. creek, Of'" is The lead para9raph in this booklet emph=slzes that the ph~sical propeTty must be the determinins facto~ 3nd it cites physic~l surroundings, shap~-, OT top·ogTaphy* It also state:. that If the property is sil'frilar in s!1ape, etc., to other pTope-rt)l in the .!'e-3 then it pr"ob.:;bly does,,' t qua.lif)l fOT" a var i anC::E. The ~e-y point is that the polie'.) of tt-,e-Cit)l i;Jf" Palo Alto is to requiTe that the condition<;;. ft:JT findin9 41 be b3sed on wniq ... er.ess of the lot, not the imp,"o9efOents. The report argues that a F,A.R. varia,lr:e sholJld be gilJE'n ~-. '-'; rc I I , I • I ~II!!]I!I' .:.".;"i :iI::~ii;,:~~~r~, ~~'_';'-3;"'~' _ .... ...;.-:. • .., .... _~_.....I. "~.;...,.' ~',",' ~ .•. ,=~:~"''''".,.'''''''''"''''''" '",-.c',,' ,.;.,_ ..". ....... ~, ! ~~ :1 o o for the exi~tiag house bec~u~~ oth.r properti~5 contain non-conforming r'"iI'sidences. Tt"lls is n-ot r.leyent since it doQo'5-n"t addreoss tne physical property" Jt is not.woTthy that tt"l~ n~ed for th~ ~_riance doesn"t exist until it is cr ... ted by thao stJbdilJison. The realit)il is that th" lot is nDt d)ff~rent from Its neJghbors in an~ su~stanti.l ~ay. There aTe sev.ral oth.r5 nearby Df a $imil~r 5hape and size. Compare the d~~.loFers lot with the lot adjacPl'lt on W.aver19-Street .. This is my lot. Both lots ';1'7'11' flat and n~or19 the same size and shape. My lot is not 9~ceptfcnals there are more neaTby like it. I therefore ~~bmit tnat there is no basis for finding .1 and the variance should be rejected. Fl nd'i rt9 .2- This fir'ldin9 requirE'S th.t the varial"lc'i' is necessary f~r preservation and p~joyment of a subst~ntial property right or to pTevent loss. ~9ail"l this finding is to 'be.based on the uniQ.ueness of the lot, not the improvements. as stated in the Zoning Guidebook on paSe 29: -aased on the unlqu.nes~ of the lot. the propert~ own~r does n~t hav~ t~e scme development rigJ"lt5 as owrlers of typical 10ts-. An example is glVet.l emp·hasizing the physical siz. of th. lot as th", basis~ T.he findi.ng in the report is tJa&ed am the e)Cisting house .. an" asai.., onlst bee.use subdivision cre.te$ the non-confDrman~.. This is clearly non-relevent in that the reason is not \;Iested in t"e l.ot but il:l the action of sUbdi\;lisiona In addition it is stated th4llt the structure could be a-ltered ttl corlf'Grm to t"le F.A.R. S:nee it is nGt .~ ht~tOTic structure it has no reco9nlz&d aTchitectualsignifiance. The argurTle-nt against alt~rin."9 it is thus spurious .. Unde-r fin·ding .2 this variance is not necessary ar.c:f conformancE' sJ;.ol:.llcJ be required. This "",,ol:lld n·ot pro ... e a hardShip to the owner sin·ce PalQ Al to wo·uld be confer j"9 a large prof) t by approvitl of these 'Jar j ances. lr.. additiol:l it is ltidicf"cu'5 to argue, ilS in the report, that the 9T'anting. is ..... necessilry loy the p~eserwation and enjoyment of a ~ubstantlal propeTty f"ight of the applicant ••• ~. The o~ner already enjoys far more prop~rty ~ights than his n.ighOoTs and n~~ he wants more. Th& propert~ has four separ.te domicil&s, with thT~E kitche~~ ... 11 Tenti!~, on an A-l lot. He has stated in hi5 application that there are ortl}!' .; re-ntE-rs .. but the reality is that there are 10 renters. Tt1ere are 2 Iti tchen"" in the main house arl,j one in the c01t3ge. The pr~pert~ is just slishtl~ large enough to. accomodate the Sl'llis-tin-g house without the cottage, and now he "Waf)t; to d'o?<:.Te-a!:.& t~ size of the lot to add anotPier, yeTy large structure. His need far -substantial property right .. -is .xcllt~si .. 'e and out ~f PTopoT"tiOn to. the neighborhoDd and to Pale Alto. His excessl~e ~eed for .ub$t~ntial prQP~rty rishts is ~he only extraordi nary th[n9 about the proper ty. Finding .3.: Thi.$ fin-ding ,.$ to dtlmCn-.tT&t& t"hat the sranting will not be ir.j~Tiou$ to the property cr impTovements in the IJicimity, and will not be injurious to tt'"le public ~.alth, safetYI g~neral welfareJ or con~eniil'nce. This is amplified on il:l the -Zoning G'Jideboo"-by noting that -the vad·.mceo will rlot be detrimental t& surroundin9 pTop~rty o~ners or resident5". I enclos. a letter submitted to the Citjl Council t,.,lhich 'protests this subdiyisiQ(1 as d-etrimental .. It is signed by e'JQory owner 0'" resid .. nt contiguous to the su·bject property. Thes@' peoplil' ctlllecti~el)l repre'5-ent .... pertise on this subje-C:t. This is u·nanamOU5 agreement that finding .3 cannot be made-. '. - .-, , \ }<I \ , " - \ ~. \ • • ',. .,. ~ -;; >~.~;~~ , " • • . -. , . " I I Q 0 i Finding .3 in tn.e report is ~ Itr.v.'Slty of the facts. The c:rot...lding an.d :J intr'lol~ion Into the daylight pl.ne .. nd t". enfation of .n oye"slzed :-'olJse will = aff.~t all of OUT pTop~rty ~alu., •• $ ~.ll as diminish OUT enjoyment of ou~ ;. propCi'1"ty. ," -I n .. e_daman'3li!' to OCIF tree ca"o.,,. ""ill b. olttra9E-otis. The staff report tTl"ialize'5 the d.n~geJl but it will be E';I(te-nsive. f offeY as e .... idence the professional arborist'$ report with ~i5 c:ond~nation ~f t~e ac:ti~ity. Many of .., 1,0'5 IJh.o live in 'Palo Alto place .. S, •• t d •• 1 of rl!'sard for OUT trees and ~ severl!il dCllflagir'.l9 them is damasing; to OUT general welfare and convenience. ConC:lus.i tins i GI'"al'ltiC'l9 these variances to profit this dil'uCiloper bp allowing spa-cia! .. pri~jlages not available to the-r.~t of !.IS would be at gros'Sly unfair : appHc:ation of the Hunicip~l Cod.~ It would es.tablish .oil dubious. p!'ecedent, ~ and would 'bl&mi sh the chClirac: ter (I f the lE'ade!'ship of our ci t\l1. 1 Grantin'9 these l;.Iarianc9s is not n~ce5$aTY U p!'otec:t the historic house from ~ demolition. TheYe is-an .alteTnative 'Site Oll Middlefield Road, owned by tne ~ cjt" wtlich would TEoquir. faT leoss Cr ... damage and tOilY les.s compromis.e to our zoning rule~~ TMis $it. is to b. ev~ntually prep~Ted ~nd sol~ for ho~slns. In this c.se the hou~e could b. moved tMeTe and tu!'ned o~eT to a developer to I restore .nd sell .. 01' it coald til' used by us, the own£"rs .. for at11,.,r ptlT~Oses .. ! such as perhaps a badly ne.cred dilY c.re CIHH .. r, or for senit;)r support .. I 1"lao,J!i' madE! other sU9gestions for this house which would .void enc:umbeTing any I nei9hQorho.od with e)(cE'ssivil!' \"ICiriillnces. J respectfull~ submit these facts and opi~ioos to •• sist you in assessing t~e ap~lication and requ.st thillt ycu ~i~. them your E~ll consideration. Respectfwlly submitted, ;;Xf I,te~· RO'3er,.lA. Ct'"aig 101 Waverly Street Pal~ ~lto , , I , • '" ...:-. f , , ., Ii • .' • • L - " , • 1""1.(3) A britr Iles<nption. lb. conl<nV"\ which 5haJl be io th. "':. dis ~ of the Qty. 0( the \"...nance or pmrl,.-b\llht; (4) bromiC< 10 the .ppllcation on file fa< puticuIan; and (5) A stalement that any interated person, or qeDr. thereof. mJ:) .ppev and be ~OI\rd. -. . - Typosnpbi<al and/or pubtishinJ-em>n shan not involidat. lb. DOtl<:< IlOl" any city KtioIL (Ord. 3~36 • 38. 1964; Old. 346~ • 59. 1983; Ord. 327312. 1981;Ord. 3048 (pMt).1978). U.90.040 .... ctioa by Lenin, administntor. A.t th~ time and ,PlKe.set r-or .wa burinl. the zoninl administrator man bear cvldenct" It'K and against oua 'pplicatiolL Each bearinl sholl be ope. 10 lb. public. The zoninl edministn.lor may continue any bearin, from time to time-. Within I Rl!.SDnable timc. but not more than tea worting chY5 after the condlU:ioQ or tbe bearinl. the ZOJ1in. a4ministr1lor slW1 make fmdings: and shaD render. 4ecisiOD aD the appfic:ltion "hi<::ll in his opinion ts supported' by the evidence c:onUined i!1 the applicltion or praenter! at the beariJ1,_ Notice 0( the decision of the-zoninl administratOf' sbaD be-J%Ul~d to the appIicallt and to In) otber penon Iequescinl suell nOlke. Upon the request of the recipient of the ~ or the dry. the va.riar".ce. and' rhe condltioru Jpplicabk there to. sholl be n:oorded witlltll< county record .... (Ord. 3340 116. 1982: Ore!. 3048 (port), 1973~ 11.9Q.05O Vorimoe rmclnJII ODd .:"""UiaM. (.) The zcninl odmlnlslntoc moy ..,."t • YIriance !rom the sit. deveIopm .. t ..,..moons. IIIe porl<inJ md Ioodinj: IqUlations. or the special requirements or Ibis title .pplicable within any district _, from the applicatio!ll 0( the flct. 'prevDr~d at til< pub6. beam .. be or she finds: (1) There are ea:ccptional or extraordinary circum~ _~_Q9ncfioolt5 appIi<able 10 !be property isml!ved Ibot do .D<>I """ry JOrienny 10 prgpe11Y Ia Ill ....... dlstri<:t. (2) The crant!n& or Ihe appllcatio. is necasary fa< the preservotion and enjoyment or • substantial property right or Ibe appli=1. and 10 prevent unn:asonable property loss or uru>eeeSSa1)I banWtip. (3) The _tina or lb •• ppEcation wllI DOl be detrimenW or ir\juriou. to property 01 imptO«m!OIlts ill IIIe ..;c;ruty ODd will 1)0( be detrimenW 10 the publ5c bealtJt. .defy. ,ene-raj we)('are. or convCrue:DCIt, (4) In odditioD 10 the abov. !Bted findings. in lb. case or. flail<><. th • . zomna: Idmlnistntor may ,ITVIt • Variance only if be or she makes a! of the IoDnwinl oddjtioD&! flJlC!inlS: - (A) The IWIIin1 or til< 'ppEcatioD will oot disrupt esu blished neilh })orbood clwacter I1'Id aesthetics. and will nO( affect tlle health of the res}. dents by ,;,rufJCantly blockin. out 6Jht .d air; (I) The sranUna: of the app6C8tioa .-ill nO( ft'Sl.lrt in ex~\le plYing. partin" potential traffic: c:on.t1kts On busy streets. s.tn:et tree: removal or 10. of private landscapinl; 676-280 • I L 1 t , , \ '\ . " "It' \. !, r . , ,"I,. ::_'. l. '"I:; ,";.t ''''~ ":I. I, ,,:.' /JtJ ~_../4-1' .9..6~. tf..¥ ....... .9MtJ/ CbalrmeD and .ember~ P.lo Alto C1ty Coune11 Palo Alto~ Cell!. De!T ~une11 Yemb~r!: 9 AUgtl,t lWO Cff1Cl Of. THE CITY IWlAGER re nto!.t .strongly objeet to the propOsed :io'Ve of hlstor1e hoose from ~ore~t Ave. to 422 Palo Alto Ave. So man, trees are strugglIng to Burv1ve tt1! drBDgbt~ aurel, few co-uld !!urvl'Ye the asestllt of to,pp1~ or p:f"'UnlI"...j; now. Some have slreed, died. 1'be old house would lo-ok tregle j~!:"J7Jed onto a 81.;1:;13 t~nd .. rd lot, S.!I .ell 8~ t1ske U.e ex1sting l1oul!ie look-lIke an. old urban tenement. It Is noted that no ~ol~11 ~e~ber 11ve~ on th1~ s1de of tOIill. So none 0.1 yo.u eould be ttllly ewere of tl':e e-:luntle.!!! cyelist!,. joggers .. stroller! lObo e~e d·OWD here to enjoy FAlo. Alto. Ave .. for the lack of tr_l'oLlg'b t.r13lff1e. 1..._~pee1.all,. :rE'ml1ie~ -.=ltb SmAll eh11drcn lesrr'1ing to ride 'bUres. But alreed, the f1r~t '2 bloels of the ~ treet are recuce.d to. only one le.ne due to parklnp, (Int. .frIIoth1ng etJould be 'tul1t a.n thle !!tre,et .. '1tbo\lt 'UI'.<dergrour.d end/or !ll':':ple uff-~t.l"E'et Dsrldng ,p;:D.aee~. The s~911 ben~rit of pror~eed moYe (mainly to ~hc profit of tbe o'tlner/dp.vel"per/le.ndlord I le over'?t 1 elm1naly out"el~hc-d 'by the harm it "Iiould do to our clty tree:s 9.nd ttl!" n~l:",l'I.:t'or hood I l'e be~ the el t.., to. move the old bo-uee try tt,~ ole ~-=ll '51 te the-t _Be eo-n:!lld.ered •• tJere more p-:c>ple could enj·:>y it .. • \ o Fah ___ Ito [ltlf Council 400 H~.l t 0'1 A\I era!!!' Paol;. Alt •• Calihndill. 94~1 ~~: Hi~torlC forest Ave~oE ~Du~e ~ovr Dillu,: ~u3 ~, J~30 / ItECErVED A{J G !i -I9SO OIY JlANAGEI'S OFFKf Dear Councilmenbprs: C{T[ ~lf ~~i<'s. OFfrC: HIIE-move .f tf-IE" fdsloric: house te 422' P .. !o Alt. AVEMe js t>ejr'9 rus.hed through the city J'roC("ss ilt i mar~ner ... hich avoids.t dil(Jtes public inplJt~ This letter is Ie pr'tE5-t this Jlrocess. wl"dch results i~ post .. rir:t9 to the Cit>' C(lunciJ onl, the ac1vantagE's of the 1I10IJE' willioUl cor.'Side-riitIOI1 of tl"H? detri/Tle~lt cr lliljur, to our dt.J and i'spe-ciall, tD d"lE' i~ter.oed' (Jeighortlc'od. n'E foJlo~in9 are e~amples. Tn~ ]/13: Historic Res-coutei>s. Board meetin9-on If'1js issue \.Iii'S o~l9' t,y acc:idErJt made k.r,o\.J!"l Ie liS) tlu£iuSh thE' alE·rtnes5 Clf Mr. Stjt(J'rj~s, durjog H,e 7/11 Cit . ., fO<Jncil l'lE'etj'lg. Hie HR8 met iIIt 7:304'1. ,despite t1ej~s advertjs.ed f(lT 3;O(tF't1 iR the paper and (In (otbIe lEi~ Thi s house move was a s.urJlr i se te tr<:o ar,d sal,le us 'ill r rl'aJl, no time tl oi~orbJ understand and f(!umlate a re<.:ponse. (lr,E' of t~le undersi9ne~ arrj~ed at 3PM t! be heard enl, to finc the ~eEtiD9 ~~eT. Tuo t,f tr-.e undersigned' calJec1 ~nd .... ere inforl'le-d ttlat it ,,"as at 7;301'1.'1, but (0 c~me late be.cause it was faT up on the agenda. Howe\iE'r these perSMS arrived at 7:30AM tSo find th~~ to,.jc lIloved up tit fiTst. How marpjl .irrj",e-d la~e and cCll.lldnrt be tHoard? Please nole tnat th~re \<Jere Irian)} protests voiCEd' a9c.l.r.st thjs. Slove at this l'IeetiJl9. On diS-Cl'ssinS O'I]S issue witn !;IaTi«us cit, staff tl-'€jI freel, ad1!it tt'la:t tf-,ey are rusl'lirtg this l.h"o"S'h the permit JlHlcess. Sut''E,equE'J4t til thjs. we Teq.uesled that Kr. ZirnTlErmar. put (IS ()r) a mailing list :0 be ad~is~d Df anp iDform~l, f~rmal cr official actions that mi9ht CgnC~TQ us re-9c.rd'irH3" thjs acti.it, 'it) that we 'Woo]dr,"t be 5upriseo again. As receQtl, as J~11 31 se~en of us attended ttle ,lanniD9 hearlD9 ts ~onsidEr Hpe permit tl1 move the hot/se. We arlO 1t-f'.eTS ,"oiced objeC:licns. te Hie np(l~e-ilt Ihis time a!so .. but by now bas.ed on specific pTotlleros. Man)! Iettr..Ts :.Iere 'E'ubll',j tte-d u MI'. ZaneT at tMic; mee-tlns lor Ms l'se. Twt, rlf LI'i)lad hire-d a ':'TofessiCinal Clrborist ta assess the damage that this 1101,11' would do to tuo stret?t tre-e-5 neaT us~ We SlJbrnitted thjs report til ~J'. Zar,er at this mE'E'tir.g. l-le have U presume that the Ci ty CouT.ci 1 "has toot been i ~for~ed {If thes ... 1f,~'uts. At th~ e-nd of the JrtE'ennq H.r. ZCi(jer and Mr. ZlrMIermarn t.oth were .sked DLrectl, ~~at was te be the ~e~t formal action taken and when would the City C-o.mci 1 be-come llluoIvE'd. We loJerl!' j nfcrl'led that the tlext actii'l ty ~ .. I'I:H.lld be Sept 12. On viewiQ9 the 816 Council H'teetill9 on CablE' lEi 'W!' were supr i sed e.g.,j. t. llot 0111, hear ~ staff repon. but actions wtljch coU'ld Effect the lI'.(· ... e. Not sUJlrhiDg tl'iere was [10 public inpJJt. n',e HiddliE'flf'ld' Road' S.il., ir,. (lUT o~i"lon. is preferable'. S.ome "f (jS have eX<rTllned" the si Ie-and t.he rOil !e. (..Ie que£tioD what 'l'aTi ance-s .... 00J6 be needed npH ji:re-not ereeded on P.A. AvE'. The ro\ite is much shortE'T, on19 4.5 blocks d'o~n Middlefi~ld Ave., and ~ould inC~T faT les5 damage to our tree canopy-~a ~wttih9 reQuir~d on Middlefield A~e., and Dnl, o~e or t~O trees wOl.lld require pruni~s on Fnre-st ~ve. We ha~e varifi~d this with the city arborist. We haVE !',Clod in harld fllr at least two We-El:S the ~tiliIs from Ihe citjl irb,Hlst regardlftg the rour~ and exactl, What trees have 10 be c~t back t~ get the ,"pouse te f'.A. Ave. About 48 trees need,cwthog, iind the canopy eolong. WaveTl~ Street woul~ be rwined. • \ 1 ''':''."', , I I , I ; I j 1 . - o ~ [10le that Uie otlh inptlt t'riitt th. cit, st.,ff "rhrs to the city counci:l ;1:11 5~5Si~D is that the f.A. Ave sit~ j~ ·perfecl·~ No meetiDQ IS ~ade or the dE'trilTJerllal f"ffpc:ts. No fl.f'l'llioa i~ ll'laodeo that t,.,js itction ""1.11 cOflfu 'Substantial t;'al~1' t • .1 dE:"l,IeJo~er-hI' .could not subdhlicfe this prc,rerl'.' p(lr!!',alJ,. WE' t..Jond'pr why j'5 the cit1 ~iUitt9 10 ~se ta)(pa)ieT~'5 mOfle-y hI add til hlS rrcfit b~ hel,iD9 pay fer this mo ... !'? N¢ me~tio~ 15 made of the E'ki'StiD9, vlE'r~ large house' Oil 42'2 po-A .. A<." •• wtdch. to\ll the Itc-tion lIf subdivision, will be on a Itt way too ~all 11 ~eet FAR. [\,len though the existing house is too !c.rge for the hot thU 'Jill b3! crnUd toy this actioo J 111'. 2ifT1J'1prg,an ir.hrms ~s that. PO r;ariance ~il1 be reql.lestl'd or needed. r. fitet t/'llS pxisting: house is s& largE' thaI it n~~ds ~lmost t~e .~tfr •• xi~tibS Jot to q~alif, for the FAR. Thi~ is hard t. beli~ve-th~t the-cit, woald heI~ a dev~loper get around Hje FAA restrictio.!'l'S ",ithQut n.i9hborhood c.:l~currenc:li'. We !"lave lJor~E'd hard for t.hese restrictioDS h Clrde,.-t. prltee:t ou,.-cit\" and nei9hb(Hhood from d'l?velo$,el's buildiog o ... ·i!Ts-ited h~usu iIIl';d thErl?b~ c:re.,ting a cro .. ded nelg:hort"1ood. Cr is 'it tf'lat we, ia North Downtown, dOr:l't quallf, for this ~r8tectio~~ T9 add t. ttl. crowdicg itnd ihstllt, the e· .. isliD9 1iouso!! t",.s be eon conver<ed iate two residl'nces and the-~oning is 1-1. Ttle devel~per doesn't SE'em ei ther to. rll?"d ill 'oIrj4lrlce U continue-Viis lEIs-as. OlltO Ihe [,ewl, ereaud lot ~ Why 1s tt,e c'itll' staff SCI I'Dttl"'siiiJtic: about t~ P.A~ Aver ~jte rithEr than the MIddlefield ~oad site? rro~ alJ that ~e have been abI~ tl hea,.-i. open ses~jons 1s tf'lat it -would b!' less. wt'lrl. r~T tfle staff to f'lav@ (,",j? diE"JElo~eT" h.andle the move h hi5 'proJen, .. The-c1pvelcper'"s moti",ps are easy tlil see. A;:'ilr l from hi 5-pli'TS-Orliitl s-ati s.faction f,.-ortl the phil.,n lh .. ~~ic: 91E"Htlre t,e 'Wi 11 halole CIt great d~aI If .. Clio. confened ell hira by t~e su"bdi_lsion et H,e Expense of the rjEi91",bt>ril:lg. Tes.ic1eIH~ .. I-te are cfe-e;::,ly c~ne:erned that anjl dl!'cis.lon t(l locate this 1'Ic-use at 422' P.A~ ~ve be made with (all cO~5-ider4ltioQ ef p~blic input and with a balance of ~alaes. ~ doo't asree thii't mo, .. ir.9 t,"..is "o~se til F.A. A\'e". iEl~tt'ad of l1jddlefl~ld Rc· .. d IS so importal'H that our nei9hborhood !-tandards arE' to toE' disr;:g-:.rdec:f. We also don't ~gre~ th~t the importance of cur tr~iE'S 1s ~o b~ dl~re-93ro~d. We ar~ anxious that e~thu$iasm for tM~ f.A .. Ave~ site does not 9ain such ~omentum V,at o.ur [,peds ar. re9olrdl'd 415-nol impQHant il this. ctlJE'st to saVE this GOld "ouse this particwlar way .. This lettH was \.Ol'"itt"~ 1"l4lstj]!i' ~5-it timel, neighborhood re5-porlse 10 the SI6 Cour~ciJ meetirt9.. The slgnen .rl' il11 un, n.-arby resideDts te 422 P. A. Ave •• and jnclude _11 (of the-si:a: contiguous ileigJ1t1ors~ ~espectfilll, sulxlli ttec1 for )lOU'T cor.sid.?"illtioD ~1 th two s19nature page~ .at I"'ched~ ··~~~1~ ·;-.:!;~.;~-:'_~;f. [., .-,'.: .... - • \ r t t , , , ~ ." \; \ \ \ ~ •. , 'r<.\c. I , /' o o '5isnituH ,ca9'" ll!'ttl!'T t~ the-Pille Alu Cl t)l COVI"lc:iJ from lhe R~side~ts cf Pr~p.Tt, Near ~2? PA Ave. A.-r ~"",,J l'l.o ~.,.. '.9'. ~~ • ...k.. It·o <,J.w...~~ ~. \L~iL ~! ~./ .~~ A.b& , " , > YJ1\ ~~\ L 13 '2. (2..0"'-<.) ~ {\ t>. "-'" • I , .' '. A Secorrd SiqrJi:lture Pa~ ~t~r to the Falo Alto Cit~uncil from the Res.idents cf Prc'peTt.Y' NeaT ~22' PA A'..IE' .. Aug 8. 1990 • . , j Cit, of Palo Ale~ Planning Co •• lesleD Palo Alto, California o / o Sept~ 6, 1990 Referec~e: Application for Varlac~es aod E.ceptipos at '22 Palo Alto J"ogecoe Sirs: ~bis letter is to presect ae appeal in tbe fora of a petition to not approve ,the refereo<:et5 ap'plicatioQ for 'iariacces and eiCeptlons~ Tbe appeal Is fro~ more tban tvo hundred resIdents of Pale> Alto. w. request tbat thIs petitio·a be included as part (If ~be Public BeariDg at 1:30PM, Sept. 12, 1990, 10 tbe Coao~il £ba~bers. Is r.spectf~llJ sub.ltted to assist f~o in assessing lbe subject appllcatlo·n. ~~,-&'7- Roger A. Ccaig 101 Waverly Street Palo Alto \ ! • I - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Crtlzens Opposed 10 Moving the Hisloric House from 545 Forest Avenue to ~22 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersrgned, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Paro AIIo beCause ~ it Is not In the public lnIerest. The move wourd create pennanent damage as explained berow. • Subcfrvldlng the lot al 422 Paro AI10 to accommodale both the present house and the Forest Avenue house wourd create two oversIZed houses on undersrzed lots, and wourd violale an of the FAR, offset. and dayUgirt plane regufatrOns. • Overbundlng the lot al 422 Palo Alto win aggravale the existing hrgh density parking probrem arong Paro Alto. • More then 50 slreet trees arong Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order to move the house.. The tree canopy woukl be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanen t or very long tem damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto to prevent the relocation at 422 Paro AIIo. Name (print) Signature Address 5. • \ ~~~~~ __ ~~~-u~~-1~~~~~~~? ?A.~ -.;L..lJ.'/lN!t&W:l~iK-.//#J.~~Wl./J.t.KU.~~.~ f.A 1'130 j ~1 <-'.n;e' 7"ry/ lO·,JCjI1t/ 7aUJfra/f~·d 72f.J uwpev1<f? Y4lo a!('!($, • i I 1"-" _. - .' • \ , , ~~ _-c: -;t :!o,."~"",:;,;,~~ .... ~~ .... .,., _--.: ___ -." o o Petition to the City of Paro Alto Citizens Opposed to Moving \he Historic Iio<Jse from 54S Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, \he underslg ned, oppose movlno llIe house presenUy at 54S Forest to 422 Palo Alto beCause II Is noI In lIIe public Interest. The mo.e would create pennanent damage as explained below. • Subdividing the 101 at 422 Palo Alto to accommodate both the p<esenl house and 1I1e Forest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on undersized Jots. and would violate an of the FAR, offset, and dayllghl plane fe9Ulattons. • Overbuilding \he 101 at 422 Palo Alto win aggravate the existing high density perking problem along Palo AlIO. • More \hen 50 streel trees along Wavet1ey and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In otc!er to move the house.. The tree canopy would be destroyed and llIe trees would SUffer permanent Of· very long term damage. We therefore petlUon the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent llIe relocatlon at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Signature Address , r. , , . , I ! f , ! , ~. r-' , '. • ""'J ...• ' .. '~ ., ."'. .' . . I I I I ,.1 , , , I , , o Petition to the City of Paro Alto CItizens Opposed to Moving the Hlstorl<: House from 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, OPPOS<l moving the houS<l presently at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In the public lri1erest. The move would Cteate pennanent damage as explained below. • SubcIIvIdIng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 aCCOrrvnodale both the present houS<l and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on undersized lots, and would violate an 01' the F Aft. otfset, and dayllg/1t plana regulations. • Overbuncllng the 101 at 422 Palo Alto win aggravate the existlng high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street IreBS along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be S<lvetaly cUI In orcfat to move the house.. The!ree canopy would be destroyed and the !rees wOUld suff ... permanent 0< very long term damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto to prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) SignabJre Address 2. 3. 4. ~\ <"7Y7''-' ~$.:5lZ.L.J~W!i£:\'-""'.25J~~~--,.dl:.u..L.tiJ.,l:l2!J'B.-143 a J -. . \ .. • • .. ..,~ . ,.w I \ 1 \ \ \ .-\ M .-.--.-.~' J ,-;.-:'".~\~",,;-1 , I -I I 1-. '-,-.~ , Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed fo MovinQ the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo AIIo Avenue We, the undemgnad, oppose moving the !loose ptesenlly at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo AIIo beclIuse II Is not In the public Interest The move would crellfe permanent damage as explained below. • Subdlvldlng the lot at 422 Palo Aha to accommocIate both !he present house end 1IIe Forest Avenue house would create two overslzed houses on undersized Jots, and would violate a n or !he FAR, offset, and dayOghf plane tegUlatJons. • OVerbu11d1ng the lot at 422 Palo Aha wUl aggravate the existing hJgh density par1tIng ptoblem along Palo Aho. • U()(e than 50 street !fees along Wa.erJay and Hawthofne streets would be severely cut In Olcfer 10 mova the house. .The tree canopy would be destroyed end the trees would sutter permanent or very long term damage. We !herefore petlllon the City of Palo Aho fo ptevent the relocation at 422 Palo AIIo. Name (print) Signatu ... Address 1. J. 7. • , ) & i~ ~"~~~~~~ ____ ~~-li~o~e~~~~~~~~r~~ 10. "'3]0 ibv~",u.A • '~~i:;~' -<-~: • \ I I l , , r' - \ i. . '>: , •• ' .~Mi';,;' io.'~_~,-;~-~::..J-=-' ~;.:;,:_:~~-~~,~~~,~=~.j,~ -<'-"'-... =,-~ -",,,-,-~_/ : , '- '-, " - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to Moving the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose movlng the house presently at 545 ForBS! \0 422 Palo Alto because' Ills not In the public Interest. The move would create pennanent damage as Gxplalned below. • SubclMd1ng the lot at 422 Palo Alto to accommodale both the present house and the Forest Avenue house would creale two oversized hoUses on undersized lois, and would Violale aU of the FAR, offset. and dayOght plane regulatlons. • OvertxJildl'!9 the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the exIsting high density parlcIng problem along Palo Alto, • More then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels would be severely cut In orcfer to move the house, The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. We therefore petition tile City of Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (priot) Address ~?4, 2- 1. . _ .. ---. L '-~:: --- ~ . • \ \ '. " '-.- -, , -~' , '. ~ •. I I ! PA I f f , I I ! I I i , I , ! . I { ! -- , -, - - , - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens QppoMd to Moving the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned. oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because -ft Is not In the public interest The move would creele pennanent damage as expIalned below. • SUbdividing the 101 al 422 Palo Alto to accommodate both the presenl house and \he Forest Avenue house would create two oversized IIoUS88 on undersized lois. and would violale an of the FAR, offset. and dayllghl plane regulations. • Overbundlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggtavate the exlsting high density parklng problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawthotne streets would be severely cut In order to move tha house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent 01' very long lerm darnage. We therefore petl1lon the City of Palo Ana 10 prevent \he relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Signatun Address ... -'--~ - .. • \. . \ .\~ ... , ~~~< • \ \ \ , \. .~ I . . ' - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Cftlzens Opposed 10 Moving the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 PalO Al!o Avenue W .. , the undetsigned. oppose moving the house pteS8n11y at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Al!o because It Is nol In the public Inlerest The move wou Id creale pennanen! damage as explained below. • Subdividing the lot al 422 Palo Al!o 10 accommodate both the present house and the Forest Avenue house wOUld create two oversIzed houses on undersIzed lois, and would violal. an of the FAR, Offset, and dayngl!t plane regulallOns. • Overbundlng the lot al 422 Palo Al!o will aggravate the existing high density parkIng problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 Slreet trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets wOUld be severely cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the frees would suffer permanen t 0< very Ioog term do mage. We therefore petillon the City of Palo AIIo to prevent the reT ocation at 422 Palo AIIo. ~ , , . • -".-..:;-,.;; . ..... ~-~- -~--;;;.-" , , . . , - • /' "I!!'_k ~~ ___ s;Y_'~~"'-"';-"::':-~'?i",.t1iy~_""",,,a,'-;!: "~.:; :''''''':r.-.::"'' ,""-"",,~-::,,,,-:!!'-';:-:"';'~"-~~",,""~""";:'--.... Q o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CitIZens ()pposed to Moving the HlslOric House from S45 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppGs. moving the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto becaus. It Is not In the public Interest.. The move would create permanent damage as explained below. • Subdividing the roc at 422 Palo Alto 10 ecwmmodate both the pnsent hOUse and 1I1e Forest Avenue house would create two oversized hO\ISeS on IInderslzed lots. and would violate all of the FAR, offset, and dayllgllt plane regu1atlons. • Overbuilding the roc at 422 PalO Alto ",rn aggravate the exlstlng high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • lIore then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees wOllld suffer permanent 01' very long tenn damage. We therefore peUtion the City Of Palo Alto to prevent the relocatlon at 422 PaloAHo. Name (print) Signalure Addnss , , '.' , , , \ , \. \ \ .-\: -" "".:.," I ' , . . .' ' . ....J I I - " ' o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to Mo vIng the iiistoric House from 545 Forest Aveooe 10 422 Palo Alto Aveooe We, !he undersIgned, oppose moving the 1IouS<!l presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In the public Interesl The move would c:reate pennanent damage as explaIned below. " • Subdividing the lot at 422 Palo Alto to accommodate both the peeHnt house and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversIzed houses on undersized lois, and would violate an of the FAR, offset, and dayfiglll plane regulations. • Overbulld!~ the rot al 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the existing high dens!ly par1<Ing problem along Palo Alto. • Mora !hen 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and !he trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. We therefore petition the CIty of Palo Alto 10 peevent \he relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Address L • \ ";;J.tJ/J!,Vf£;U4.:JU-:M1.'@~~~~~u2f.;4,(i?;i~~!,/'(ln iwt'.x? Wy. PA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~_&&I~-~~U1'~~' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AU~£~V.~~~W7~~- I R.: ---c4..r t?~ lII~nl~~. ~A. 7. '')A 8. • " "' , \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ "~" - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Oppo$ed to Moving \he HIstoric House from 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We. the undllrslgnecl. oppose moVIng the house ptNenlly at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because" It Is not In the public Interest. The move would creele permanent damage as explaIned below. • Subdlvldlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 acconvnodale both the ptesent hOUse and the Forest Avenue house would ereale two oversized houses on undersized lots. and would violate all of the FAR. offset, and day!1gf1t plane regulations. • Overbundl"9 the lot a' 422 Palo Alto wUi aggravate the existing hIgh density parking ptoblem along Palo Alto. • More then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels would be severely cut in Older to move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would sun ... permanent ~ very lOng term damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto to ptevent the relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Nome (print) Signature Address • t r f .. , ". \ \ . \ , ~ \" , :-' .. I o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to Moving tile Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo AJtl) Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose movfng tile house presenUy at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because· It Is not In DIe public Interest. The move would create permanent damage 8S explained below. • Su bdIv1d1ng the 101 at 422 Palo Alto to aCCOlTl/ll()(fate both the present hOuse and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on underslzed lots, anc! woulcf violate an of DIe FAR. offset, anc! daylight plana regulations. • Overbuilding DIe 101 at 422 Palo A!!o "-ill &ggr.!vat9 the existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More tllen 50 street trees along Waverley anc! Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order to move the house. The tree canopy woulcf be destroyed and the trees woulcf suffer permanen t or very long term damage. We therefore peUtion DIe City of Palo Ano to prevent the relocation at 422 PaloAno. Name (print) Addnss • ~,¥-,-,:,=-.I.,j~~Uffl6I1'Y-1~~~~~~"""'" P. A q'P-O ( . l'J9'i3Q( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r.~A~~~ ,pj<;P<;~~-I-J'Uj!:U-'l...J£L-!1.4 VI 11: t1i-1. q 'I zc, fo l?tWi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~ v.Mt 'P.A19~3 dl.L)ltlfU.aJ;l.b4.;"'£~~;LL.~~~'LJ!.t~~ (!~f. P,~ ~~~~~-u~~~~~~~~UM~ar.r,~~ S1. ~ ~ -'"------ .- " I " r· - i N~#C):1iLA kP't A~fjj ~ 5}1~ Petition to the City of Palo Alto Cftlzens Opposed 10 Moving the Hisloric Hoose from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto AvelltJe We. the ,,,lderslgned. oppose moving the I>oose presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto beCause It Is not In the public Inlerest The me ve would creele permanent damage as explaIned below. • SubdMdlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommo<!ate both the present house and !he Foresl Aveooe house would creale two oVelsized houses on Ilnderslzed lois. and would vIolale all of the FAR. Offset, and dayllgllt plane regtJlations. • OverbuTJclj~ the 101 a1422 Palo Alto wm aggravate the existing high density parklng problem along Palo Alto. • More !han 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawth«ne streels would be se_ely cui In order 10 move the house. The Iree canopy would be destroyed and the trees wotM suffer permanent or very long 18rm damage. We therelore peUllon the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (prinr) Signature Address • \ ~ .... 'I' • , ,·/1\'1 .. I '," , • - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed 10 Moving the Hlstorlc House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the hOuse presenUy al 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In the public Inlerest. The move woukl create permanent damage as explaIned below. • SubdlvkSlng the lot al 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the p!'esent hOuse and the Forest Aveooe houS<I wo"ld creale two oversIzed !louses on undersized lots, and would violale an of the FAR, offset, and daylight plane regulations. • Overbuilding the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravale the eXisting high densIty parking p!'oblem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets WOtIfd be severely cui In «der to move the hOuse. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would s;Mer permanent « very long term damage. We thererore petftlon the City of Palo Alto to p!'event the relocalion at 422 PalO Alto. Name (print) Address • \ ---""-. .4 ', .. -.// ./1 , ,~ 1 1 j 1 -,'."'. o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to 101'0 vIng the HistoriC I-Io<J se from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently al 545 Foresl ~ 422 Palo Alto because it 15 not in the public interest. The move would ereale permanent damage as explaIned below. • SuMlVldlng the lot al 422 Palo Alto to ac<:ommodale boIh \he present hOUse and the Forest Avenue ilouse would ereale two oversized houses on undersIzed lois, and would violate an or the F Aft, offset, and dayOg/1t plane regulatiQn S. • Overbundlng the to! at 422 Palo Allo will aggravate the existing high density parking problem along Palo Mo. • More than 50 street Irees along Waverley and Hawthorne slreels would be severely cut in order to move the hou se. Tf1e Iree canopy would be destroyed and the trees woufd suffer permanen I 0< very long term damage. - We therefore petition the City or Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Ano. Name (print) Signatur. Add.-ess • \ • ., - -1':--. • - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed 10 Moving the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 ~22 Palo Alto Avenue We, the u ndenlgnecl, oppose mo vIng the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo AIIO because R Is not In the public Interest The move would cnale permanent damage as explaIned below. • Subdividing the 101 at 422 Palo AIIo to accommo<lale both the ptesenl hOuse and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversized hOUMa on undersized lots, and would violate an of the FAR, offset, and daylight plane regulations. • OverbuJldlng the 101 at 422 Palo Alto win aggravate the existing high density parldng ptoblem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be seV81ely cuI In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long lerm damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo AIIo 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Signature Address / • \ (,oOt1<...,( ~ -n, .... e."'" H"",o' <\1;' foJo ~h~. ~ ~ \1. (/l- ~ 21 r'l'lO \ \ .. I I I I ., "\:t;_ ,~, ~;;;:-'-' . , . i d····1 , I . . l " ~, , Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed 10 MovinQ the Hi storie House from 545 F()(est Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the hou"", presently at 545 F()(est to 422 Palo Alto because It is not in \he public interest The move would create permanent <lamage as explained below. • Subdividing the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the . present house and the Foresl Avenue !louse would create two oversized houses on undersized lots, and would violate an of the FAR, off""'t. and dayfig/ll plane regulations. • Overbuncling the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the existing IUgh density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawtho<ne streels would be severely cut in order 10 move the house. The tree canopy woold be destroyed a nd the trees wC>tJId suffer per manenl 0< very long lerm damage. We !herelo<e peUtlon the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Signature Address ~N' ')< "'"'''''/ ,I 1 /Y-.'"-,, fb",~_ Plecl5o! (eluxt.. peti~ ~: 10\ ilive4' lej~. ) ~ F\ \'Iv qtt.30J . , - • \ ,I • ,-' . , , " - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Cltl%ens Opposed to MOving 1M Historic Hoose from 545 Fore51 Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently al 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because it Is not in fhe p«;bIIc Interest The move would create permanent clamage as explained below. o SUbdividing the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the present hOuse and the Forest Avenue house wOUld create two oversized houses on undersized lots, and woo Id Yiolate an of the F Aft, offset, and clayOght plane regulation s. o OverbuOdl"9 the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. o More than 50 street trees aTong Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order to move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long lerm damage. We therefore peli1i6ll the City of Palo ArtG 10 prevent the relocation at 422 PaIGArto. Name (jlf"inl) Signature Address i"""· ~ ~ D<;.,}U~ .... 10\ \.lh'{al~ '3t. J \b..~ f\1-Io 'lLBDI .' \ • . .. ~. I i I i , t I 1 .. ,~. " \ I i .··:>~d(L: .. ' / " . - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed 10 Moiling the HiSloric Hoosa from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the underSigned, ~sa moiling the housa presently al545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto becausa it Is not In the publlc Inlerest. The mo ve would ueale permanenl damage as explained below. • Subdlvidlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the presenl housa and the Forest Avenue hoose would creale !WO oversized houses on undersized lots, and would viola!e an of the FAR, offset. and dayllghl plane regulations. • Overbuilding the lot al 422 Palo Alto wm aggravale the existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More then 50 street Irees along Waverlay and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut in order 10 move the r.ouse. The tree canopy would be deslroyed and the trees woold .suffer permanent or very long lerm damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto \0 preve nt lI1e relocation al 422 Palo Alto. ' Name (print) 1. SClbJ i\ U1~ 2. J4anetk: D ~ ~ D' Ihf. 8. 'C SlgnaltJr. Ad"' ... 9.' ~'~-,4 ~~;t, ;..;;:;::.-'- 10. 5eaYl lMSOYl .5?mn .;£~, t(/6 RvAIA /10(: • i . I ' .. '"".-,.. ~".:~~.' \ , \. \ \ "«' o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed to Moving the HistorIC Iiou$e from 545 Forest A.enua to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Afto because it Is not In Ih& pubIlc: Interest. The move would ereale permanent damage as explaIned below. • Subdlvld!ng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 acCOmmodale both the present house and the Forest Avenue house would creale two oversized houses on underslHd lots, and woold vIolale an 01 the FAR, Offset, and dayDgllt plane regulations. • Overbuilding the lot at 422 Palo Afto will aggravale the existing high density parIdng problem along Palo Alto. • More the" 50 stneet trees along Waverley and HaWlhor ne streets would be severely cvt in order 10 move the /louse. The tree canopy would be destroyed and tJ1e trees would suff .... permanent or very long term damage. We therefore petl!ion the City 01 Palo Alto to prevent the relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Name (prinl) Slguature Address Cf? -'-rrr; 11 J:j v ~ J. {§,,<&:; IG- • , t .. , Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to MOving the HIstoric Hoose from 545 FOI'est Aveooe to 422 Palo Alto Aveooe We, IlIe undersigned, oppose moving IlIe I!OIJse presently at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because it Is nol In the public interest The move would create permanenl damage as expleined below. • Sulxllvidlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accomr.>odate both the present house and the Forest Aveooe house wol11d create two ove~lzfld houses on undersIzed lots, and would violate an of the FAR, Offset, and dayngllt plane regulati",,$. • Overbundlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravale lI1e existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • MOI'e than 50 slreet trees along Waverley and Hawth<><ne streets would be severely cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and tI1e trees would suffer perma""n! or very long tanm damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent the reToca!k)o at 422 Palo AlIa. Nome (print) Signatur< Address ~JL.~~~!i.Q~M.~~/£::.~~~~l;Q_~ A 1-19 /\"E .~LX!:J!l......~r.t-,,,,,,,,)!~""""""''J4W-_~fJ'.4i,, A~r ' 5. SO:) ?C<l. ~, (if) lo(2.vc. _6.~...,p.~.....J~~::""' __ I.!f1q::=...--,~ _5"' ~ fit. i Ii. A-oc..~S 7. 1~:;w..t..!...\-\~~ -h~~M.d<1~L.l3.L 'Yo, ~gj 3. OJ C(l<j#,~ 57-• ,. 11. ..£,ll~<ru>l.....::!4,,-'?i~P.!;tH~_ U'rVgt£ tlAgt>?lI! J.{(jl, f, .... ". ~ ... _ ':'-. • \ • -)..:, :.~ , I ~-... " - o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CltlJ:ens Oppose<ilo Moving the Hls10rlc House from 545 Fotest Avenualo 422 Palo Ano Avenue We, the unc1<Jrslgnecl, oppose moving til. house presarrtJy al 545 FOlest to 422 Palo Alto beCause H Is not In lila ptJbllc Tnferest. The move would craala ptItmlInent damage as explained below. • SUbdMd1ng the lot at 422 Palo Ano 10 accommodate both the present house and the Fotest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on undersized lOts, and would vloiale all of the FAR, offset, and daynght plane regulations. • Overbuilding the lot at 422 Palo AHo will aggravate the existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • Mote than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawtho<ne streets would be severely CIJ1 In order 10 move the house.. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanenl or very long term damage. We therefore petlUon the City of Palo Ano 10 prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Ano. I. 2. 3- 4- s. Name (print) Sigu.tu~ Address • \ ".'-~Sa.=I~o.:::::h:":"-2:!~~~--'~.!>l:I2~:..:....o!~~~_:;>'.:::~~1 ...::I(~'~I ~ St-P. f\. 7. IJ6 r\ ",d..,\ \ tv ~ ~. ~eu:cl~~(""J.jtW-fJ:1f..~. f66l!d,'l1rW f), f ~ ~<LHj'il.L~+-&~<-¥~~/'i'}-.... _<Iu; tJ?<£, Arx . .:!:; -...L~:W-+----'~~:;..L __ -JJ~La~U~.L_~lJ..-Pal" 14-1\", t\~ I'~ • • ~. ' .... f,· I r·· , i I . , \. . \ , . \ , ' .. ..'i" . \' .-'.'. -" - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed 10 Moving the Hisloric Ho«se from 545 Forest Avenue 10422 Palo Alto Avenue We. !he undersigned, oppose moving the house presently ., 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because it is not In \he pubflc Inlerest Tile move would creale permanent damage as explained below. o SubdIviding the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodale botll tile present house and the forest Avenue house w"uld ereale two oversiZed houses on undersIZed lots, and would vIolate aR of tile FAR, Offset. and dayfigflt plane regulations. o Overbuilding !he lot al 422 Palo Alto will aggrava!e \he exisrrng high density parl<lng problem along Palo Alto. o More lllar> 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order to move tile house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and tile trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. We therefore petillon the City of Palo .0\"0 Ie freven! t'Y.o re~ati"" a! -22 Palo Alto. • > :. '. • \ ',. \ \ , . ' , \ .~ \ ... - • '. . . \. ,;: -->~ ;;: •. " ... ' -0:-• -1'. l - -, o Petition to the City of Palo ~fto CItizens Opposed to Moving the Historic House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo AIIo Avenue We, \he underslgn8cl, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because it Is not in the public interest The move would ~eate ~rmanent damega as explained below. • SubdMdlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate bOth the pr-esent house and lIle Forest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on und8l$lzecf lois, lind would violate an of the FAIl. offset, and dayl!ghl plane regulations. • OVerbYHcfI"9 the 101 at 422 Palo AlIa will aggravate the axisti"!) high density parI<Ing problem along Pal 0 Alto. • MOI'e than 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be de$troyecf and the trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. We therefore petition the City 01 Palo Alto !O prevent 1/1e relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Name (prinl) Signatun Addnss ,. 10. • , I I ' \ \ , -' \ ~.- ',> I ". , , .::f .·.,·:~·'::Si, --, . -::.--. ; I ! ' .. - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Cltlziln~ Opposed to Movfng the HIstoric: House from 545 Forest Aventle to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose movlno the house presently at 545 forest 10 422 Palo Alto because it Is not In \he public Interest The move wou Id create pennanenl damage as explained below. • SubdIviding the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the present !IOuH and Ihe Forest Avenue house would create tw" oversIzed hOus8S on undersIzed lois. and would violate a II of the FAR, offH!, lind dayllg/1t plane regulatloC\s. • Overbundlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the existing hlgh density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More the n 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels would be severely cut In order to move the house. The Ifee canopy would be destroyed and the trees would sutler permanent 0< very long term damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto to prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. L Z. 3. 4. Name (print) Slgnatun Address ROBERT i$/.~AI ~1iI £k,..__... );?diYrF ~VC/4~.4}f. (ltl7li£lJ"-f" I.f ~lvtJ ~ a&J",'>(. SUi ,/X:y,y AlIt: IUAt =-------------------.-S. ~-------------------------------------6- 7. 8. !I. 1(). • • :--.. -, . . ~':L "0', \. \ . ' ~---, , \ . , --, >; ~ ... \ .... , , • i I 1 \ , • o fi(u'Q ,)1 17& .... ,'7 c..V,,~Jj,,~ h~«r'/lr Il,' ¥" rt._ i~"~J..;, Petition to the City of Palo Alto ~"''''). ,"L.l. L Cltlzens Opposed to Moving the Historic House from 545 Fore51 Avenue to 422 Pall) Alto Ave""" We, the underslqned, oppose moving the house presently al 545 Fore51 10 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In "'e puIXlc Interest The move would create permanent damage as explained below. • SubdIviding the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodale both the present hOuse and lI1e forest Avenue hOuSe Would create two oversized houses on undersized lois, and would vIolale an of the FAR, offset, and dayllg/lt plane regulations. • Overbuilding the lot at 422 Palo Alto wm agg<IIvate the existing high dens!ly parking problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In order 10 move the house.. The tree canopJ' would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. W. therefore petIt!on the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent !he relocaCon at 422 Palo Alto. Name (prinO Signaluro Address -, , '. ) " . ,. -~ ;~-: r -~ ,. r- '. - • t"'.\ 0 Petifi1>n to the City of Palo Alto Cltlzens Opposed to Moving the Histone House from 545 FOI"SSf Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We. the undersigned. oppose movlng the house presently at 545 FOI"eSf to 422 Palo A110 because It Is not In !he public interest. The meve would create permanent damage as explained below, • SUbdlvk1!ng the let at 422 Palo Alto to accommodate both the present house and the Forest Avenue house w()IJ1d creale two oversized houses on undersized lots, end would violate all of the FAR, offset, and dayDghI plane regulatIOns. • Overbul1dlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto wfll aggravate the existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • Mor. than 50 street trees along Waverley end Hawthorne streets would be severely cut In OI"dar 10 move the house.. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent 01" very long term damage, We therefOl"e petlllon the CIty 01 Palo AIIo to prevent the relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Name (prine) • • .. .... " \ -. I i. o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed to Moving tile H/stOlic HcH.se from 545 forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue .~ We, tile unclerslgned, oppose moving ilia house j)/'esenUy at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto becausa-It Is not In !he public Interest. The move would create permanent damage as explained below. • SUbdIViding the lot at 422 Palo Afto 10 accommodate both the j)/'esenl hOuse and the FOI'est Avenue house would create two oversized houses on undersIzed lots, and would YIOlale all of the FAR, offset, and dayDglIt plane regulations. • OV .... bUncllng the Jot at 422 Palo Afto will aggnval. the exlsflng high density parking j)/'Oblem along PalO Afto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets wOUld be sev ..... 1y cut In order to me v. the house. The tree canopy wOUld be destroyed and the trees wOUld sutfIN' permanenl or very long lerm da mage. W. therefore peUUon the City of PalO Afto to j)/'event !he relocation al 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Slgnaturt Address • L 'Stva.rl5~e!l'\barkt~~ ,.ofS}fe1J..(/ Av ~~Nb 1. fYJo..lt-, CooFf' Yrlcuv ~ J,C/Sk:~nda.f)Aw.R.UHrIt, 1. ~I\ sr J:: "'. s,. P.A, ~~~~U--J~~~T---y~~~~.P.1 ~ ~'I.2l£~~~~~/..f.4~~.....:n.~~~¢~ I:-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L041'RA s,t f¥\ ~~~.~~~~~~~ __ ~~~L~~ P.1 .. \ \ \" .' , ~ ... O)t:1l:'B,l" •. ; i, 'I ':i-... ~""-"--I -""- -~... a '. ~ .--" o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to Moving the Historic Iio<.se from 54S Forest Avenue!o 422l'alo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose movtng the house presently at 545 Foresl 10 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In the public Interesl The move would create permanent damage as explained below. - • Subdividing tile lot at 422 Palo Alto to accommodate bOth the present hOuse and the Forest Avenue house would Cleate two oversized houses on undersized lots, and would violate an of tile FAR, offset, and dayflg/'ll plane regulatfons. • Overbulidlng the lot at 422 Palo Alto wUl aooravale the existing high density parIdng problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely cut in order to move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long term damage. We thererore petition the CIty of ~ Alto to prevent 1he relocation at 422 Palo Alto. N."", (print) Signature Address • \ \ -, \ .' , .' , , \ • -:~ .. ...... , " .. ' -\ ".-.- -1".-- , 1 1 o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Clllzal1ll Opposed to Moving the Historic House from 54S Fore5t Avenue to 422 Palo A/(o Avenue We, the underslg ned, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In ttle pubOc tnterest. The move would c:reste permanent damage as explained billow. • SuWIvfcIIng ttle lot at 422 Palo Alto to acconvnoclate both the pnosenl house and the Forest Ava"..,e house wOUld create two oversIzed houses on undersized Iofs, and would violate an of the FAR, offset, and dayDgIlt plana regulations. • Overbuilding the rot at 422 Palo Alto WIll aggravate ttle existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be Mverely cut In order to move ttl. housa. The tree canopy woold be destroyed and ttl. trees would suffer permanent Of very long term damage. We theretore petition the City of Palo Alto to prevent the relocation at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Signature Aclcln!ss \ \ • I. 2- l. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'~r~/~~ =---,,tll-,+~:J£::L-f~~~~,,:---!b..:==Y~~9 fJ1 7i'3Jb ~~~-4l;'=:=-I~ft+'il'A-<-l~~-..q:.:."""'-:U-",""~:l!:0I.l,,,,-'" _, irk 1't30 ( C{O'l t4.,~ Q".., t:n ~'f30G 5. '- 1. II. ,. 10. ~;2.'i' F..d <01 72 , I Fj;, 6'D[T ltV I i I I , , " t , f , , ~-)--"~ , "'" ;. c' " , . , " , " \ \ ,', , \ '. I r 1 ~ , , - '.' o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItizens Opposed 10 Moving the HIstoric Hou$e from 545 Forest Avonuelo 422 Palo Alto Aveooe We, the undersigned, opp<l5e moving the house presently at 545 Forest \0 422 Palo Alto because II Is nol In the public Interest. The move wouJd create permanent damage as explained below. • SUbdividing the lot at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the present house end the FeteSl Avenue house would create two oversized houses on unc1erslzed lois, end would Violate an of the FAR,. otI!K'1, and dayllghl plane regulations. • Overbundlng the lot al 422 Palo Alto wlU aggravate the existing high density parking problem along Paio Alto. • More than 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be severely CUI In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy w~ be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long lann darr.age. We therefore petition the City of Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocation al 422 PaloMo. Name (print) Signalure Addnss L • \ • '".'-'"-;,,:";.-;., . , [ ! , '.> • :-.. . \ - r I . ~ l 1 I j j • 1 - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto CItIzens Opposed to MovlnO the Historic House from 54S Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo Alto because It Is not In the public Interest The move woold create permanent damage as explained below . • SubdlvlcIIng the lot at 422 Palo Alto to accommodate both the present hOuse and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversl%9d hOuses on undersl%9d lots, and woold violate an 01 the FAR. offset, and daylight plane regulations. • Overbundlng the 101 at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate the existing !Ugh density parl<lflg p<oblem along Palo Allo. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne Sotree!s would be severely cut In order to move the house. The tree ca nopy would be destroyed and the trees would suffer permanent or very long leml damage. We therefore petH!on the City of Palo Alto to p<event 1IIe relocation at 422 PaloMo. Name (print) Signature Address L • , \ \ • . . -;"}' •. ,< .. ·.1 "(:-, --' '- ..J, .. : --'-- • j r': I '.. ,~ "',: .. ':'. ' .. i.·~ ........... l ~ , '::- , , , - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to Moving the Historic "'.ouse 'rom 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently al 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because it Is not In the public Interest TIle mova would create permanent damage as explained below. • SUbdhrkllng the tot at 422 Palo Alto to ac:commocrate both the present house an<! the Forest Aveooe house would create two oversized houses on unde~lze<f lots, and wouk! violate an of the FAR, offset, and dayOght plane regulation$. • Overbundlng the lor at 422 Palo Aho wID aggravate the ex;stlng high density parking problem along Palo Alto. • More than 50 street !tees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels wouk! be severely cuI In oreler to move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and tha tree. wO<lld suffer permane,,~ or very tong ferm damage. We therefore petillon the City of Palo Aho fo prevent the relocation at 422 PaloAllo. Name (point) SignolUn Address 10. .' \ -\ , • "", .. . .. ~~ .. ,'. ".' \ \ .. \ \ . ... ..... \" ..- !' f- - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed to UOvln!l'.ha Hlslorlc House from 545 ForeS1 Avenue to 4Z2 Palo AIIo Avenue We, \lie undersigned, oppose moving !he house presently at S45 Forest to 422 Palo AIIo beCause it Is nol In 111e public Inlerest. The move would create permanent damage as explained below. • SubdIvIdIng !he 101 al 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate bol" !he present house and Ihe Forest Avenue house wOUld create two oversized houses on undersized lois, and would violate an of the FAR, offset, and dayUglll plane regulations. • Overbulldl~ the 101 at 422 Palo Alto will aggravate !he existing high density p8lklng problem along Palo Alto. • More then 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels would be severely Min ordef 10 move !he bouse. T!>e tree canopy wOUld be ckIsIroyed and the trees wOUld suffer permanenl or very long lerm damage. ' We !herafore petItlon the City Of Palo Alto to prevent !he relocation at 422 PalO AHo. Name (pIin!) Signaluro .. • \ ! I I r i j , . , , "'~. \ \ , \ , ' , , , " ", .-\ ~lJ,' :' "1-' "'-, .:' :'1~ jl ~~" ... , .• " .•.. ,.'." , " • • :, I , . I ! ;j 1 -j '':I ,l -j :1 J '\ 1 ; , 1 .. - ,- '. ," -- . , , . , ." peti1fon to the City of Palo 2to Cltlzens Opposed 10 Movlna the HIstoric House from 545 Forest Avenue 10 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently at 545 Forest to 422 Palo Alto because it Is not in lI1e public Interest. The move would crute permanent damage as explained below. • Subdividing the 101 al 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the presenl house and the Forest Avenue house would create two oversized houses on underslzec' lois, and would violate an of the F Aft, offset, and dayDghl plane regulations. • Overbulld1ng the lot at 422 Palo Alto wn/ aggravate the existing high density parklng problem along Pa!o Alto. • More than 50 street trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streelS would be severely cuI In order 10 me ve the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees wOUld SUff&f permanent or very long lenn damage. We therefore petition the CIty of Palo Alto 10 prevent the relocalfon at 422 Palo Alto. Name (print) Address 3. "- S. f. 7. 8. ,. 10. --.-""-- • • ' •. "~.-," "~~--;'" .. • "\ " . \ \" i , .. , -0'.:..-. ',~.;<, , .. ;',- I' " r .. ! ! , \ \-. ,', kr5-'~-' .~';'jr ' ___ ~~<.~~'''' .... ~~_~~ __ ~'.~....,.~,f ... o-.... ''''. _'-:"_"'-1<_~.C'i""""-_~~~""'''''v:;o,;-_;:.::.~~·c''~_ - o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Clt~ens Opposed 10 Moving the Historic House 'rom 545 Forest Avenue to 422 Palo Alto Avenue We, the underslgMd. oppose moving the hou sa presently at 545 Forest 10 422 Palo AltO because It Is not In the public kiterest The move would create permanent damage as explained balow. • Subdividing the 101 at 422 Palo Alto 10 accommodate both the present house and 1118 Fonst Avenue house would create two oversized hOuses on undersized lois, and would VIolate aR 0( the FAR, o(fsel, and daylight plane regulatiOns. o o"e<buildlng the 101 at 422 Palo Mo will egg<avate tM existing high density parking problem along Palo Alto. o More then SO street ,,_ along Waverley and Hawthorne streets would be sever'.lry cut In order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees woufd suffer permanenl or very long term damage. We therefore petition the CIty of Palo AIIo 10 prevent the relocatiOn at 422 PalO Alto. Name (PODI) Slgoatun 6-,. J .. ,. 10. 1- l ! I r I I I , \ • -' .. '~1 .f :. .~~-~: .. I I - • \ ,/ ll:"~~_~~~_"!'"?"~:T~'~~l~.:,..:; .. "~:,-s_:~.,,:,,;.:-..".,,,,-,;;-,~~~-,~t ~:.i"~~1~$i;~.-....:..._:· __ ",_:2. o o Petition to the City of Palo Alto Citizens Opposed 10 Movlno the Hlslorlc House from 545 Forest A.eooelo 422 Palo Alto Aveooe We, the undersigned, oppose moving the house presently al 545 Forest to 422 Palo AIIo because it Is not In the pubUe Inlerest. The move would «eale permanent damage as explain&<! below. • Subdivfdlng the 101 al 422 Palo AIIo to accommodale both the presenl house and the Foresl Avenue house would «eale two oversized houses on undersized lois, and would violale an of the FAR, offset, and dayDghl plane reguTalions. • OVerbUBding the Jot al 422 Palo Alto will aggravale the existing high density parking problem along Palo A110. • More than 50 streel trees along Waverley and Hawthorne streels would be severely cui in order 10 move the house. The tree canopy would be destroyed and the trees would sUffer permanenl or very long lerm damage. We therefore petition the City of Palo AIIo 10 prevenl the relocation at 422 Palo A1!0. N.me (point) Signature Adele ... I. {VI GU • it ,5,..1 ti , lR ' /,IIL r,. :)~ J.>Lv, ,:J ~ <. '-;1/(') "': P/"/ 2::-:_'~t"'[dj,-,t Ic..-:->.( .. (",,' ;.,..1 [d"",,·u.!U4',..i ''4I-..-L/"",'' ,,,,II ... f ... f.,..1 1"".1..,: [;.-'A"-n,,,]J""'!4-/~5 *')' N:j , /J' 'J; ,'x),' ~l.!." .,' r v, ,~I" , ".", 1,,1 .1 "t '!" "'~"":'" of..-"1(1--' -\-.J.,,--... "-'\.~_-r. "'i ,.; •• -,., .~ __ . ___ .;!.........: __ I,._~ to _4._<.:J~;'..:.i.L' ",';..' _":{c.J1.LJ ... I",I,-,":iu· i""_.....c.'~.:_~'_~ylL d (1;/(> )fe'_" :\ {/ ,-~,---', -S'---'-p; 1:;: --~. I r , ~;'~~dky~~ 1 ....: 'I~' / '. ,"'" I '~. '.:."' -~ ~~_.l~;Z:~:~ FA '1,.~ , ,. 10. ------------------ '. , \ \. \ , " , • I • -.1" o o 1 HISTORI( HOUSE MOVE ROUTE {54S forest A"e. to 42l Palo Alto Ave,} ESTIMATED TREE T~LMM[~G AND REMOVAL Keyed t •• ap: IIAI' , ACTION TR££ JYPE LOCATION L Remo'Je Pine PartIng Lot Prhate. 2. Ilemove Carolina Cherry Parkfng tot Prfrate 3. TrIll Redwood ParkIng Lot Prhilte 4, Tr!1I Redwood ParkIng Lot Private S. Remove Magno111 Yebster St-• 600 Block 6, Trill Birch Hamilton A'Je~ . ~OO Bloc~ 7, thr. 12. Trim Sycamore lytton Ave. . 500 Block U. and U. Trim Plagnoli. Lytton Ave .• 500 Bloct IS. thrw 19. Trh. fofagnolia lI,verley St. • 200 Block 2Q. and 21. Trjra liquId Amber Waverel". st. 200 Block 22. Trim '11,1 nut Wavere 1J St. • 200 810ck 13. Tdm Elm "'averel, St. 100 Block 24, t~r. 2B. Trill liquid Amber Wavere11 st. 100 Block 29. Tria Walnut Wavere11 St. · 100 Block 30. Tr!1I or Oat Palo Al t. Ave. 400 Block Remove 31-Tria LIquid Amber Pal. Alto Ave. 400 B!oct 32. Trill or Chestnut Palo Alto Avo. 400 Block Remove: 33. Remoye lIquid Amber Palo Alto Ave. 400 Block ",' • I ' I ~" .• i -,; .; i'" . I I ' .... . . • I~:'" '\r-· < ;-;::~-'. :::~:~~ ",:{ .-. , .. ..-,,,",.; I i . I . I ~ \ o 422 PALO ALTO AV£NU( 90-PH-3, 90£14-41, 90-'-27, 90-'-28 1 RE'ISION TO CONDITION 12 [eeH>tl-oo$, addit ions) ll. The 'istorie: houS-e and t~~e existing house _s.~aH be restored to use as a single-famil, res'd~nces_ A h8u\lding permits for i~terior Ilodifications to tfle ftMe.5 residences on bot .. lots to eliminate multiple titch-ens i.nd se9a.n.te H .. ing quarters sllal1 be Dbtair.ed prior to filing t~e final map. .0 final iDspection. utilit¥ connections Dr QccupancJ shall be granted for the ifstoric ~oase until in!trior mo~iffcitjons are compTet'ed am! finalized 'or boU residences~ and a final lIIap is recrJrded. --~ ""'-, - • • i .i ~