HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-16 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
6
DATE:NOVEMBER 16, 1998 CMR:430:98
SUBJECT:APPLICATION OF KATHLEEN ROSKOS AND SCOTT SELOVER
FOR SITE AND DESIGN APPROVAL AT 4020 PAGE MILL ROAD
FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO
CONSIDER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT
(FILE NOS: 98-D-4, 98-V-10, 98-EIA-9)
RECOMMENDATION
The Pla~lning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration (Attachment D of the Planning Commission report), with a finding that the
project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve a Site and
Design application for an addition to an existing single family dwelling based on the findings
and conditions attached to the Planning Commission report (Attachments E, F and G).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the foothills adjacent to the Mid Peninsula Open Space District and is
zoned Open Space (OS). The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing
single family dwelling and related site improvements, including.a swimming pool and
landscaping. The applicants have received variance approval from the Zoning Administrator
to encroach into the required front setback and to exceed the allowable site coverage. For
a more detailed analysis of this project, please refer to the Planning Commission staff report
and attachments (Attachment B).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1998. The minutes
from that meeting are attached as Attachment A to this report. The Commission
recommended (4-3 vote) that the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design application
CMR:430:98 Page 1 of 2
be approved per the findings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission.
The majority of the Commission members felt that the proposed design, when combined with
the existing and proposed landscaping and material palette, effectively mitigated any
potential view and aesthetic impacts of the planned addition to the existing single family
home.
The minority view was that, while the design was acceptable, the house was "simply too
large" for the site. The minority view did not include any suggestions as to an acceptable
threshold for development on .this parcel but did suggest that modifications to the relatively
massive chimney would serve to minimize the expressed concerns over the size of the
proposed structure. Please see the attached minutes (Attachment A) for details on the
Planning Commission discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/28/98
B. Planning Commission Report and Attachments dated 10/28/98
Plans (City Council Members only)
PREPARED BY: George White, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDW ARb G WF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY-~SON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Kathleen Roskos and Scott Selover, 4020 Page Mill Road, Los Altos, CA 94022
CMR:430:98 " "Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
EXCERPT of DRAFT minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission
October 28, 1998
REGULAR MEETING - 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Session called to order at 6:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink
Patrick Burt
Staff:
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
George White, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Wynne Furth, Senior Attorney
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Amy French, Associate Planner
Carolynn Bissett, Associate Planner
O~COMMUNICATIONS: Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a li~tion of three minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker’s req’t~ card available from the secretary of the Commission. Tl~.e Planning Commission
,-,,__.. __ ~, .__~ ~, ~"~reserves the_righl",t~mait ~the oral communications period to 15.minutes.~r,_d_:___T,h,e" f’~m on our agenda is Oral Communications. This is the time when
~_e_pu~b_lic" may s~ ~o items not On the regular agenda. I have no cards for Oral
Comm~.ns._.See’mg no _o_n_e"~ wishes to address us in that section we will close that and
mov~a C.__hange ,s A_dditions ~nd.xDeletions. Do Commissioners have any changes? Then
mo~o.. Unf’.mish_ed Bu_~ss. Our Unfinished Business item tonight is our
~ussing ~centives’~,d,.Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation
?in~_a~_._ie~ ,W, °u~l,d. S~ta~ff. lik~ t° ~e??. us .wh~re _~
Mr~al." A tht e last me~g on October 14 the Commission
~ .that were.liste~,~hat is shown On the overhead
P~st meet’rag, to ass’~the Commission as well as
chment A is what
d then they are
er in terms
~o~fo.d.~.e.v..e~l~opm, e_n_t_,_e_x_c_e~t~,~, de,.ve~l.oPm, en! rev.iew, pro.cess, improvements, fees, ~,, technicg~
items that the Commission went through are shaded and you have already proX~
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
C~,ty of process and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t work. In this case I would not
wa~process to get in the way of ~e right solution. The right solution is a maximum three foot
fence’a~d I think it is clear that that s required for public safety. You said three feet? In that caseI mis-he~,d,~ In that case I would support it.
Chairman Byr~t~,,Any other comments on the motion? I think it’s unfair to the applicant given
the unique circun~ances of this property to reduce that fence height from the original Staff
recommendation. Ft’a,,nkly, if there had been the votes for it I probably could have made the
findings.You can clearly\make finding one on the extraordinary circumstances and fmding two
o~ation of a substa~al property right. The issue is finding three about public safety.
~s no interest in a’~ foot fence but it seems to me that the original Staff f’mding of
f_our fe~t,_given_the unique _charades of this property, is probably reasonable.
~ I disagreel I li~ on a street where my neighbor had a four foot fence
r.ig.ht next to,.,.my dr}vew.ay.and.it, scared.the 1 _,_ll.out of me everyday when I would back out of that
d_rivew~yI Thrse feet,s the right number. It~ a safe situation.
~’t’s very_regrettable th’a,t,,,the applicant originally may have had the
p~ut I also agree withNa,~se young school children there, many
o_f. ~em ar~ f°ur ?t_ at best"- ..... ~
~sion Why don’t we~ve a vote on the motion. All
~ favorg~s 7-0. Does Staff have’Xa~ate when this item will be
?~ar?y Cou_~il?. .......:. .....~
.
~:_ This ii scheduled t~ be heard °n N°vember 16th"~
.?airma~ Byrd: Very go~d.. Than~. you ve~ m~ch.__~ ff
introduce this item please.
4020 Page Mill Road (File Nos.: 98-V-10. 98-EIA-9): Application of Scott Selover and Kathleen
Roskos for Variance approval to construct an addition to an existing single family residence that
is setback 70 feet from Page Mill Road where 200 feet is required and covers 11.7% of the site
with impervious surfaces where 3.5% is the maximum coverage allowed. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared..
Zoning District: OS. This item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council
on November 16, 1998.
Mr. George White, Planning Manager: Actually to clarify the application of Scott Selover is for
site and design approval at 4020 Page Mill Road for an addition to an existing single-family
dwelling and related site improvements and to consider a negative declaration for the project.
Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
the negative declaration with a finding that the project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts, and approve a Site and Design application for an addition to an existing
single-family dwelling based on the findings and conditions attached to the Staff report. The
applicant proposes to construct a 3,317 square foot addition to an existing two story single-family
dwelling on a one-acre parcel on Page Mill Road in the Open Space zoning district. With the
addition the dwelling would contain a total of 5,669 square feet including an attached three car
garage. The proposal also includes the establishment of a swimming pool and associated
landscaping. As you indicated, the applicant has obtained variance approval both to encroach into
the required 200 foot scenic setback along Page Mill Road and to exceed the allowable 3.5 % of
impervious coverage requirement in the open space zoning district. The Zoning Administrator
found that there were unusual circumstances and potential hardships related to this site in that the
site is a one-acre parcel where a 10 acre standard is the minimum in the open space zoning
district. That combined with the 200 foot scenic setback along Page Mill Road effectively limited
the development and buildable area of the site. Therefore the Zoning Administrator was able to
make the appropriate findings that are attached in the two decision letters in your packet. The
project otherwise complies with all of the applicable zoning regulations in the open space zoning
district. That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Chairman Byrd: I have a question for the City Attorney. Do we have a noticing problem here
because the agenda off which I was reading speaks just to a variance? ObviouslY the Staff report
speaks to the Site and Design review, does that matter?
Ms. Furth: As you indicate it does reference a variance but it also further down in the text
references a Site and Design approval. So I.don’t think the public would be mis-led in this
occasion.
Chairman Byrd: Any questions for Staff?.
Commissioner Beecham: Can you advise us of similar parcels in this area and the size of the
homes currently on them? Especially of any actions the City has taken recently on homes on
similar parcels.
Mr. White: I did a somewhat less than comprehensive survey of the immediate area. When I say
the immediate area, probably several miles in either direction along Page Mill Road. I found five
other parcels of similar size. When I say similar size, less than standard, less than 10 acre
minimum, but most of which were larger than the one acre parcel on the subject site. The ranges
of development for single-family residence ranged from 2300 to 3200. square feet with one parcel
being undeveloped. Further, I don’t know of any projects in this general area that have been
subject to review by the Planning Commission or City Council via the site design process.
Chairman Byrd: Additional questions for Staff?. If not, I would invite the applicant to address
us. Please state your name and address for the record and also provide a card with that
information for the clerk. You have up to 15 minutes for your presentation.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Scott Selover, 4020 Page Mill Road, Los Alms: I am Scott Selover, I live at 4020 Page Mill
Road along with my wife Kathy who is attending to the loud one in the back of the room. 4020
Page Mill Road is, if anyone has been up there this particular parcel right here is, surrounded by
two other one-acre lots here and there. This lot was actually subdivided from ours back in the
late ’80’s and was developed after the adoption of the Open Space regulations. We also front
directly on to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. The Page Mill Trail actually runs
right by the side of our house. For any of you who have not seen it, this is the current state of
4020 Page Mill Road. It is a fairly standard retirement home from the 1960’s when the open
space area was first being developed. I think we are the first house that was up there. We were
built between ’64 and ’65. Standard thousand square foot box. Box would be a very kind word
for what we live in but we do live on one of the most marvelous pieces of property in the open
space. When we bought it in 1991 we always had the intention of coming here and seeing you
all and ultimately trying to do a development on the property. Now because we are grossly
substandard, you’ll notice that the 200 foot scenic setback includes our entire house. If you add
to that the 30 foot setbacks on both of the property boundaries we actually wind up with about a
25 foot strip of land over here that would actually be buildable without a variance.
Another view of the same house. The house was actually never finished. This was phase one of
a two phase project. Mr. Brandwine who built the house got this far, walled off this end and
moved in. When we found out there was a phase two we were really excited. We thought we’d
just go and get the plans and continue it. What we discovered was there was another box
extending beyond the box that was there. Clearly it’s an interesting house in that we have a
garage door on this side. You might be able to see it in one of these other pictures. We have a
garage door on the other side as well. I think Mr. Brandwine didn’t want to do a lot of backing
up, but you can drive straight through the garage. This now, you can start to see perhaps the
greatest challenge on this particular piece of land. We are actually now standing in the Mid-
Peninsula Regional Open Space land and looking back at the house. You’ll notice from that side
of the property it is very exposed. In its current form we are very exposed, very ugly, two story
house that’s quite visible to anyone who’s coming by the trail. We’d like to think that this does
indeed provide a couple of benefits besides those that it presents to us. I believe that this will
indeed allow a development of the property to do a couple of things. We can take this rather
uninteresting box and do something a little more architecturally interesting with it but more
importantly it allows us the opportunity to do some landscaping and try to mitigate the visual
impacts that the house currently has. We are right out there and if we just leave the house the
way it is we’ll continue to be right out there. Just for reference, a perspective of what we
currently have, it’s very nice: When we originally started the discussion it was clear that we were
going to be needing to do something. Kathy and I sat down and we started talking about the kind
of spaces we wanted. You’ll excuse the fact that we had just gotten back from [Talliason] so it
is very "Frank Lloyd Wrightian." In order to try to minimize the coverage which was an issue,
and in order to try to avoid moving towards Page Mill Road which was an issue, our first attempt
was to make something extremely monolithic and clearly much more visually impacting. When
we actually came to the City the very, very In’st time about two years ago, it was pretty clear to
us right from the get-go that this was entirely the wrong direction to go. That trying to minimize
coverage and minimize encroachment in the setback was the wrong thing to do. What we really
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
needed to do was to start talking about opportunities to minimize visual impact and to try to bring
the development much more in line with what the site needed. We tried doing a number a things
in early discussions. We tried pushing out an additional element to house some additional living
space. That didn’t work particularly well. We tried bringing everything down to a single story
but again, we had a very large addition, we described this in the variance letter we provided.
What we finally wound up with when we turned our architects, Greg Evard and Alex Bertum,
loose on the project was what finally shows up in your packages. That’s what this is here.
In essence what we’ve decided to propose was to move the existing parking from underneath the
house out and bury it as much as we possibly could into the existing hillside. There is a hillside
berm that runs this way across the property. By moving the parking out from underneath the
house and burying as much of it as possible in front we were able to develop the living space
underneath the existing structure and save some space there. Then to take what we wanted to do
with a master bedroom/bath and bury it in the same berm on the west side of the property. We
also then added a living room and an office. We limited the distance that they protruded from the
existing property in such a way that the existing landscaping, a pair of Italian Alders here and a
Douglas Fir here, would block the view of these additions from our neighboring properties. So
in doing these types of things we wound up with what we believe to be the right approach and this
is what we ultimately took to the variance commission. Recognizing that we were indeed coming
closer to Page Mill Road which required variance approval and we were clearly going to require
a variance for coverage. This lot is just under an acre which would limit us to about 1500 square
feet of impermeable surface. So we knew we were going to have to do something. The
opportunity to try to use landscaping and to use the existing topography to try to minimize visual
impact really seemed like the right approach. In addition, what we tried to do to even further
reduce visual impact from the Page Mill Road side is to move the driveway from its current
location, moves kind of east of a mature eucalyptus tree here, move it on to the other side that
then allowed us to make some additional plantings. Dave Doctor and George White got up to the
house and did a walk about and had some great ideas about additional plantings along this
southern end of the property to reduce the visual impact from the Page Mill Trail, to add a couple
of new evergreens, we’ll probably go with Douglas Firs here. Again, doing everything we can
to block views of the addition from the Page Mill Road side. Then to increase the amount of
planting along the open space side of the property. Again, recognizing that the views from the
open space are at a lower altitude looking up. So by putting plantings along the hillside, the berm
to the west and to the north of the property, it allows us to block an awful lot of the view of the
new addition. Further what the addition is really blocking, in terms of view, is a view of the old
house. So by doing these types of things we think we’ve really been able to match the kind of
ideas we have for living space for Kathy, Patrick and I with something that really is much more
visually interesting, that really fits much better into the environment. We think it really is the
right project for the property.
Now, the materials board is kind of sitting on this chair here. The kinds of things that we tried
to do with materials, again, looking to try to get the house as harmonious with the hillside and
harmonious with the environment as we could. We chose to use stucco as an exterior building
material for a couple of reasons. Fire is one, another is weather. The weather up there can be
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
pretty severe and a wood-sided house takes a pretty mighty beating. Our neighbor below us has
stucco and that seems to have held up pretty well. By choosing these muted earth tones we think
we really wind up with something that fits well into the environment. Adele Wood from the Mid-
Peninsula Regional Open Space came up and we gave him a walk about and showed him this
material board. I think he was very impressed with it and I think he sent a letter, saying that he
had reviewed that with us, to planning. You’ll notice that we’ve selected non-reflective glass,
we’ve selected a kind of a copper tone for skylight glass, and we’ve selected a material called
Core 10 as a roofmg material which is essentially rusted steel. It is completely non-reflective, we
think that it will be very, very well suited for this application. It will blend well into the
environment and it will provide us with the kind of weather protection we’d like as we go through
living up on the hillside. There is a stone structure that houses the fireplaces. You’ll notice that
there is a sample of the stone there. I had originally had this kind of wild, wacky dream to
actually take stone out of the site, there is a blue serpentine vain that runs right through the site,
but I was told that it was unsuitable for building. So we selected a material that we think will go
well with the color palette to make this stone structure. You can clearly see that the existing
structure remains in its entirety. We are simply adding the elements on the sides of the property.
Another opportunity that took to reduce the visual impact is that part of the addition that is closest
to the open space is the master bedroom wing. If you’ll notice, the end of it closest to the open
space has flat roof. So what we’ve done here is try to keep the height down on the parts of the
developm.ent that are indeed the most visually impacting. So we’ve tried it at every turn to come
up with something that we think really suits the site, really suits our living. This is now a floor
plan. This is now our existing house. This is where we live. It remains in its entirety.
Underneath that Comes sort of the exciting part. -Where we currently park our cars we are going
to turn that into dining room and kitchen. We’ll have guest room which for those Of you who
read the article about our neighbor, Anita Borg and the wild ride up and down the road, we
decided we’d just simply have a place for our guests io spend the night; a living room, an office,
the garage is off on this side and a master bedroom and bath well separate from where Patrick is
¯ going to grow up. Finally just a couple of perspective views of the property as we hope to make
it, recognizing if you will, the way it currently looks compared to this. I think you’ll see that in
general it provides a benefit not only for us but certainly for people who are using the trail. It is
a more interesting house and we will be able to really mitigate the visual impact by doing the
landscaping that we’ve talked about. I think it’s the right project for the job. Thank you for your
time, I’m ready for questions.
Chairman Byrd: Does anyone have questions of the ~applicant?
Commissioner Burt: What metals are you planning on using for this metal roof?.
Mr. Selover: It’s a material called Core 10. It’s a steel roof, there’s a sample of it here, it’s pre-
treated steel that rusts naturally to this f’mish. It has beenused successfully in a number.of
applications. I think the City, as a matter of fact, uses it.
Commissioner Burt: The shrubs that you are planning on putting on the perimeter, has there been
consideration as to what species?
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Selover: Yes, they are all native species and we have gone through a review with Dave
Doctor, the City Arborist, and we’ve incorporated I believe all of his suggestions. He’s gone
through and given us his feedback and some great ideas on the species. I believe they are all
native plants.
Commissioner Burt: Do you know whether, in addition to being native plants, they are plants that
are naturally occurring in your vicinity right there?
Mr. Selover: Yes, yes.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else
from the public that would like to address this application? If you want to please come forward,
state your name and address for the record, and please fill out a card for the clerk as well.
Dr. Anita Borg, 4022 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills: Hello, I’m Dr. Anita Borg. I live right
next door to Kathy and Scot~ and have been their neighbor for six and one-half years. We have
been consulted throughout their planning process. I just wanted to let you know that I think they
have done a stunning job of considering their neighbors and considering the City and really trying
to consider the people who walk on the trail and go up and down the hill. I very much support
the result that they’ve come up with.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no other speakers from the public I will close
the public hearing and bring this site and design review back to the Commission. Who would like
to lead off our discussion? Are there further questions of Staff?. Go ahead.
Commissioner Cassel: I have one. Site coverage for a one acre lot that is not in the Open Space
District would-be what?
Mr. White: Well, it depdnds on what district you are talking about. For example, if it was an
R-1 district it would be 35 %.
Commissioner Cassel: Residential Estates?
Mr. White: I’d have to check the code, I don’t have it in front of me.
Commissioner Burt: Under the issue of the percentage of the lot that would in the future be
impervious surfaces are there any measures to mitigate the impact of having those impervious
surfaces such as french drains, essentially percolation efforts?
Mr. White: I’m not sure I understand the question. One point before I go on. In the Residential
Estates it is 25 %.
Commissioner Burt: Am I understanding it right, in this zoning this would exceed the normal
allowance for impervious surfaces?
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. White: That’s correct.
Commissioner Burt: So my question has to do with whether there are any efforts to reduce the
run-off occurring from allowing additional impervious surfaces.
Mr. White: I don’t think there is any extraordinary efforts in terms of something peculiar to this
site. As you can see this is an area, even though it is a one acre parcel, the driveway area as well
as the area around the house except for the swimming pool is all pervious material. So there will
be a great amount of percolation into the soil directly. In addition, the area surrounding is open
space on one side and generally open areas on other properties adjoining. So I think that the
normal percolation would suffice.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff?.
Commissioner Beecham: In the set of drawing, on the final page there are some photographs of
the views of the site from other locations. One view is from just below the site in the open space
district. Are there any other locations in the open space district where this can be seen?
Mr. White: Not that I know of. We actually asked the applicant to do a fairly comprehensive
survey of the surrounding area including open space lands and any other public viewing areas that
we could locate on a map. We found the only place in the open space district adjoining this
property was. directly next to the property. The only other place that we found that the site is
visible is from a very distant view on Skyline Boulevard.
Chairman Byrd: Any other questions? Then let-us begin our discussion. Who has preliminary
comments. Kathy. -
.Commissioner Schmidt: My preliminary comments are that I think that these homeowners have
worked very, very hard to come up with a thoughtful hilltop design that works not only for
themselves but for the open space, for their neighbors, and they have worked with the neighbors
and with the City to come up with something that works. They are obviously working with a lot
that is unusual up there in that it is about one acre when open space now requires 10 acres and
many of the other properties are 10 acres there. So in order to so something they do indeed need
the ability to build within that scenic setback and also to exceed the permeable coverage allowed.
I think they have indeed really done their homework and come up with a creative solution. I think
that this will be a vast improvement over what is there right now.
Chairman Byrd: Other comments, Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I think this is a wonderful design but I also think it is in the wrong darn
place. I think it is a great design. One of my concerns is as I asked Staff where else can you see
it from the open space, and they say virtually nowhere. I guess I have to rely on that even though
I have great doubts. As I drove by today, from your view you can see vast areas in the back. So
I’ll assume most of those areas can see you but they seem quite distant. So the site is probably
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
not really identifiable. I have a great concern about the size of this house being that it is on such
a relatively small lot out there. Let me say that regarding the 200 feet setback and a variance for
that, I don’t have any problem on that because of how it is designed and what you’ve got and so
on. I don’t have any particular problem on the impervious surface area that we are talking about
that is an issue here for the variance. I just have a question, it’s such a big darn house for that
site, I did ask.Staff this afternoon if they could provide some comparables in that area. As George
came back, the other houses, there aren’t many comparables, but the other houses seem to be
2300 to 3200 square feet which is quite a bit less than this. Your request coming to us today is
to more than double the size of the house. I do have a lot of trouble with that even though it is
a nice design. I do have one comment on the design and I probably have never done this in my
years on the Committee, but on the design I think the chimney portion does not fit and sticks out
more. I would feel better about the size of the house basically if you were to lose the chimney
on it. That is visible from the west which is from the downhill side. Most visible from there as
well as the east although I think it is not visible from Page Mill actually. I think that is not
compatible with the basic idea of having a structure that provides you with what you need
internally but still minimizes visual impact externally. So my suggestion would be to drop that.
If nobody else is concerned with the size in this location then I won’t push that aspect any more.
Commissioner Schink: Well I think the size would obviously be a concern to me if the design a
clumsy design. I think, frankly, in the many years that I remember seeing homes proposed in the
open space district, this is probably the most sensitive home. The selection of materials couldn’t
have been done with greater care to fit in the environment. I think that we should simply
commend this applicant for not only their enthusiasm but the product of .their enthusiasm has
resulted in a home that I think is a better example of what Frank Lloyd Wright said a home should
be in the mountains. I believe he said it should-not be on the mountain but it should be of the
mountain or in the mountain and.that’s really what they have accomplished here. I believe the
Staff has written the right findings in the Attachment E and F. I’ll be happy to support the Staff
recommendation.
Chairman Byrd: Do other Commissioners share Commissioner Beecham’s concern on house size?
Commissioner Burt: I have some concern over the house size. I think that the thoughtfulness of
the design does go a long ways towards mitigating those concerns. I also have some concern
about if we are looking to allow increases in the home size beyond what would currently be
regulated or allowed. Whether the addition of the pool is necessary in that context. It once again,
diminishes the amount of area that has permeable surfaces. I do recognize that this lot is not
going to have a huge impact in the impact of the watershed but we’ve had extensive erosion of that
watershed. This drains into Los Drankos Creek, is that correct? We had the Los Drankos Creek
closed for the upper portion of that trail and Foothills Park closed for an extensive period of time
from past years from erosion. So I think that is something that in the future we might want to
give greater consideration to, and I think there are some other measures that might be used to
mitigate the drainage on the site or sites like this in the future.
Chairman Byrd: Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Bialson: My main concern was visibility from trails and open space. I’m relying
on Staff and also the applicant, it sounds like Staff was relying on the applicant as well, that this
location is not that visible. Although I share Bern’s concern that when you are standing in ttie
backyard you can see a great deal of the open space. So assuming that it does not have much
visual impact I’m not concerned about the size or the impervious surface. I support the applicant
and I think he’s done a very sensitive job in designing this.
Chairman Byrd: Well, I was very glad that Bern raised the issue. I was going to raise it if you
didn’t. I think this is much too much house for this site. While it is an extremely sensitive design
of arriving at a 5600 square foot house up in the hills seems to me to be inconsistent with the
policy intent of the open space guidelines. Especially when we’ve got a site coverage hook to
hang our hat on to constrain house size. I agree that the setback variance is not an issue, the
impervious surface is not an issue though I share some of Pat’s concerns there on a broader level.
I do think that the size of this house is inconsistent with where we should be going in regulating
development in the open space area. I think it would be possible for the applicant to come back
with an equally well designed house with equally sensitive materials and structure but with a
smaller structure that fits better into the surroundings.
Commissioner Schink: I’d like to try a motion. I would move the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the negative declaration, Attachment D, with fmdings
that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve a site and
design application for an addition to an existing single-family dwelling based on hhe attached
f’mdings and conditions.
Commissioner Schmidt: Second.
.Chairman Byrd: Discussion on the motion. The maker or seconder? Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I will oppose it. Owen helped my argument here some. What I foresee
happening up there is we’ve got some other number of small parcels, one acre more or less. As
I drive up that area I see a number of mailboxes clustered together. I have no idea of how big the
parcels are. Those parcels currently are limited by site coverage limitation. As we are here
tonight if the Commission goes ahead and if the Council were to follow up and approve this
essentially quadrupling the allowable coverage, I can see over the next five and ten years, if I
were an owner of all those other sites I’d say, let’s do it while we can. I think we’re going to get
a number of four and five and six, and I’m not sure what the limit is, size houses on relatively
small parcels up there. I think that’s inappropriate for that area. I understand Staff has given me
assurance tonight that this is simply not visible except from a very small location on the open
space district. I hope that is true, I f’md it a little bit hard to believe. I think this is simply too
large for the site. I got chided already here by Kathy for my architectural talents,, but I would lose
the chimney. If Council goes ahead and does this I hope they listen to that part at least.
Chairman Byrd: Other comments on the motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Schmidt: I must say it’s a point of emotion. I agree with Jon’s succinct comments
about the quality of this design. I think that is really significant in this location. I don’t think that
we will have a large number of small .lots relatively speaking in the area with the ability to come
forward and seek large houses. On all the maps that we have I don’t see a lot of other small
properties. There are some adjacent ones but I think much of this area is already in large parcels
that I believe cannot be subdivided. So I’m not concerned about this being a precedent to allow
tons and tons of large houses in the foothills. I mainly feel much the same way that I don’t want
to see large houses. I don’t want to see excess impervious surface. I think indeed the quality,
thoughtfulness of this design, and the likelihood that this is not going to be a precedent for
numerous other situations. I think we should approve this project.
Commissioner Schink: I would disagree with Kathy in one sense that it will be a precedent. It
will be an important precedent establishing that you can do a fairly good size house sensitively
that blends into the environment well. It will be a great contrast to the totally inappropriate
Italianate colonial mansions that people want to build up in the hills. It will be great to have this
good example to point to people and say you can get what you need or fulfill your family’s
requirements in a sensitive way. I look forward to this example to be able to point to people in
years to come and say, now just go do what they did.
Commissioner Burt: I think that the quality of the design and its compatibility does deserve
consideration in this process. That the applicant would be appropriate in pursuing a significant
increase beyond their current allowable FAR. But i think approximately a four-fold increase is
excessive and that I don’t think we need to allow a four-fold increase in order to acknowledge the
benefits of a highly compatible design. For that reason I will oppose the motion.
Commissioner Cassel: I’m going to support the motion but I do have some reservations about
size. I just can’t quite figure out why people need these huge, huge rooms. It may be a wish and
a desire but it is beyond me for the need. Part of what we are about is safety. I urge this family
not to presume that they are going to put a child of this age upstairs by themselves as many feet
away as this is. I will support the motion. I think the balance between the one acre and the ten
acres is a consideration here. Open Space District was designed to have ten acres with 3.5%
coverage and we are now talking about one acre and how we are going to balance that. I was
looking at the size in relationship to that and in relationship to what’s down in the valley and
relationship to the number of units in the site. I’m pleased that it is blending into the edges, into
the ground and the colors that are being used. It is kind of funny however, that we said building
is stuck out and disturbing the open space district and it won’t once we build a new one because
we are going to put landscaping up. We certainly can put the landscaping up without building the
new building. That isn’t really an equivalent~ the privacy and protection could be provided either
way. I will support the motion.
Commissioner Schink: Can I as a procedural question. A lot of my colleagues have raised the
issue about the size but hasn’t the variance already been approved?
Chairman Byrd: My understanding is the variance has been approved but if we f’md that the
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
design is inappropriate, and size is portion of the design, that we can recommend denial of the
design review. Is that correct?
Commissioner Beecham: The size is associated also with impervious surface.
Ms. Furth: You are applying a separate set of standards than the variance standards. You are
applying the standards attached here which are specific to the open space.
Commissioner Schink: The variance is there. You couldn’t conceive of a more compatible design
for the square footage. You might take exception with the fact that that variance was granted but
now that the variance was granted you’ve got to admit that these people have come up with
absolutely the most sensitive application of that square footage. So I think you are really on shaky
ground there just to say well, maybe it is too big. The decision whether it is too big has already
been made.
Chairman Byrd: As I said up front, I think it is impossible to de-couple design from size. As
sensitive as the design is, and it is clearly perhaps the best we’ve ever seen, a lot of that design
is still too much.
Commissioner Butt: Clearly there needs to be some limit on the size. Would 10,000 square feet
be acceptable here? I simply think that going from the current living space of a 1500 square foot
building and a 1000 square foot living space to a 5600 square foot structure is a huge increase.
I don’t see the family needs overwhelmingly mandating that. It is not a bunch of new children.
Many people would prefer a .larger residence it is just a question of how large would be
appropriate.
Chairman Byrd: I will not be supporting the motion. I think a 5600 square foot house is
unfortunate in the open space district no matter what size lot it is sitting on. In this case when
there is a regulatory basis for reducing its size I think we’re crazy not to take advantage of it. I
also agree with Bern that if it is going to go forward to reduce the visual impact of the chimney
might help. Perhaps between now and its Council review the applicant c0uld take a fresh look
at the design and see if there is a way to accommodate some of the concerns that have been
expressed here tonight. With that why don’t we call a vote on the motion. All those in favor
please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) That passes on a 4-3 with Commissioners Schink,
Cassel, Schmidt and Bialson voting yes, and Commissioners Burt, Byrd and Beecham voting no.
When will this go to Council?
Mr. White: It is scheduled to go on November 16th.
Chairman Byrd: Great. Thank you very much. We’ll now take a two minute break before we
return to our historic incentives and benefits discussion.
Oty of Palo Alto Page 36
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION 3
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
George White, Planning Manager
October 28, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT:Application of Roskos/Selover for Site and Design approval at
4020 Page Mill road for an addition to an existing single family
dwelling and related site improvements and to consider a Negative
Declaration for the project (File Nos; 98-D-4, 98-EIA-9)
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the Negative Declaration (Attachment D), with a f’mding that the project will not result in any
significant environmental impacts, and appro.ve a Site and Design application for an addition
to an exi_sting single family dwelling based on the attached-findings and conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the foothills adjacent to the Mid Peninsula Open Space District and is
zoned Open Space (OS). The applicants propose to construct an addition to their existing
single family dwelling and related site improvements, including a swimming pool and
landscaping. The applicants have received Variance approval from the Zoning Administrator
to encroach into the required front setback and to exceed the allowable site coverage (see
discussion under Summary of Significant Issues and Attachment C, the Zoning
Administrator’s decision letters dated 7/30/98 and 10/2/98).
The applicant proposes to construct a 3,317 square foot addition to an existing two-story
single family dwelling on a 1 acre parcel. With the addition, the dwelling would contain a
total of 5,669 square feet of floor area including the a new, attached three car garage. The
northern end of the existing second story will be extended by approximately 230 square feet
and will serve as an architectural connection to the central chimney feature of the new
S:IPLANIPLADIV/402Opage.sr 10/28~
Page 1
addition. The plans also propose a swimming pool and various other minor site
improvements. Vehicle access would be from the existing driveway off Page Mill Road.
The proposed additions would be of a rural design, with a combination of treated metal roof,
and stone and stucco exterior. Proposed building colors are proposed to be earthtone to
complement the proposed building materials and the decomposed granite driveway.
A color and material sample board will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting.
Site Information
Miscellaneous project information is provided below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:Roskos/Selover
Owner:Roskos/Selover
Assessor’s Parcel Number:351-05-053
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Existing Use:
Surrounding Land Use:
Open Space/Controlled Development
OS - Open Space
Single Family Residential
North:
East:
South:
West:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential.
Open Space
BACKGROUND
The applicant obtained Variance approval on July 30 and October 2, 1998 from the Zoning
Administraor to encroach into the required 200 foot scenic setback and to exceed the
allowable impervious coverage requirements (see discussion under Summary of Significant
Issues and Attachment C, Variance approval letter dated 7/30/98 and 10/2/98).
S:IPLANIPLADIV/402Opage.sr
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Except for the allowable impervious coverage and scenic setback requirements for which
Variances have been obtained from the Zoning Administrator, the project has been
determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance (see table 2). The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
policies and programs: Natural Environment Element, Policy N-6 and N-7. In addition, the
proposed residential addition complies with the adopted Open Space Development Criteria
as indicated in Attachment E. These criteria have been developed to ensure environmentally
sensitive and visually unobtrusive new development in the foothills.
TABLE 2
Project Comparison with Current Zoning Ordinance Requirements
REGULATION
SETBACKS
Front - -
South Side -
North Side-
Rear -
HEIGHT
PARKING
IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE
AREA
OS REQUIREMENT
30 feet/200 feet*
30 feet
30 feet
30 feet
25 feet max.
4 parking spaces/1 covered
3.5%
PROPOSED
70 feet*
30 feet
38 feet
30 feet
23 feet
4 parking spaces/3 covered
11.7%**
*The OS zoning district requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. The project site is also
subject to a special 200 foot scenic setback that existing along Page Mill Road. See discussion
below and Attachment C, the Zoning Administrator’s decision letters dated 7/30/98 and 10/2/98.
**The applicant has received Variance approval from/_he Zoning Administrator to exceed the
allowable impervious coverage amount up to a maximum of 1 i.7% of the site area. See
discussion below and Attachment C, the Zoning Administrator’s decision letters dated 7/30/98
S :/PLAN/PLADIV/4020page. sr
10r28~
Page 3
and 10/2198.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Site Design: The new addition would be located on a developed parcel fronting on Page Mill
Road. The proposed addition will be accessed from an existing driveway that would lead to the
new garage. The proposed project is located near the center of the lot with the bulk of the
structure more than 100 feet away from Page Mill Road.
Architectural Design: The proposal incorporates natural materials and colors in transforming
the existing two story box like residence into an articulated one and two story single family
home. The proposal uses the existing two story residence as the central point of predominantly
one single story additions to the north and south, with the proposed new chimney acting as the
dominant connecting feature. A swimming pool is proposed adjacent to the southern bedroom
addition.
Materials, Aesthetics and Visibility_: The site contains a number of mature trees and shrubs
that serve to minimize the visual impact of the existing home as well as the proposed addition.
To further integrate the proposal into the natural environment, the applicant proposes to use a
materials palette of muted earthtones. Consistent with the rural surroundings, the structure will
be painted tan and brown with stone veneer, bronze aluminum window frames and metal roofing
with a natural patina. The windows and skylights are Conditioned to be constructed with non-
reflective glass. These materials and colors combine to blend harmoniously with the decomposed
granite drive and walkways as Well as the site’s natural surroundings.
Tree Preservation and Landscapingi The application calls for the removal of two mature
Monterey Pines to construct the new garage and one small Monterey Pine at the driveway
entrance. The City Planning Arborist has reviewed the plans and concluded that the two large
pines are in "poor to fair health" and has suggested appropriate tree replacements in the general
area of the new garage. The small pine is recommended to be replaced with landscape features
that are appropriate to maintain vehicle site distances on the new driveway and from Page Mill
Road. These replacement features are shown on the attached.revised landscape plan dated
6/17/98.
The applicant has worked closely with the City Planning Arborist to develop a tree preservation
and planting plan that will serve to minimize impacts to the remaining trees and place new trees
and vegetation in area that will screen the existing and proposed dwelling from the public
viewing areas on Page Mill Road and in the Mid Peninsula Open Space District lands.
Appropriate tree preservation conditions are included in the attached conditions of approval. The
Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District has reviewed the plans for the proposed landscape
screen along the western property line.
S:IPLAN/PLADIV/402Opage.sr
1012898
Page 4
Impervious Surfaces and Lot Coverage: Site improvements related to the proposed
development would result in a total impervious coverage for the lot of 11.7%, including the
modified house footprint and proposed swimming pool. The driveway is proposed to be of a
pervious, decomposed granite material and therefore, does not count against the total allowable
coverage on the site.
The maximum impervious coverage allowed in the OS zone district by the Palo Alto Municipal
Code is 3.5 percent of the gross site area or 1,479 square feet. As previously indicated, the
applicant has received Variance approval for exceeding the allowable lot coverage up to a
maximum of 11.7 % of the total site area. A second Zoning Administrator hearing was required
because the area of the swimming pool was not included in the initial impervious coverage
calculation. The Variance approval was amended to reflect the correct amount.
The Zoning Administrator, in reviewing this Variance request, found that unique circumstances
and extreme hardships, including the relatively small lot size and the establishment of the 200
foot scenic setback, exist on this site that reduces the usable area on the one acre parcel to less
than 1,500 square feet. This, combined with the fact that the existing house exists well within
the required 200 foot scenic setback along Page Mill Road, represented a potential property loss
if the Variance was not granted. (see Attachment C for the Zoning Administrator’s findings for
approval of the Variance).
Setbacks:
The required front setback on this parcel is 30 feet in the OS zone district. In addition to the
standard 30 foot setback, a special 200 foot scenic setback from Page Mill Road also applies to
the property. This setback was established after the house was built and as a result the home is
well within the 200 foot setback. Due to this unusual situation, any addition to this
nonconforming home would require Variance approval. The Zoning Administrator found that
this also was a unique circumstance and granted the Variance subject to the findings contained
in Attachment C. The proposal otherwise meets the setback requirements of the OS zone
district.
Site Access: The proposal would include a driveway constructed of decomposed granite. The
proposed driveway will utilize the existing driveway orientation to access the new garage and
vehicle turnaround area.
Site Grading
Site grading would be needed to construct the proposed single family addition. The house will
incorporate a combination of 501 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill mainly in the
areas of the new garage and the swimming pool patio.
S:/PLAN/PLADIV/4020page.sr
Drainage: Site drainage will be provided through on-site percolation.
Utilities: The existing residence is currently being served by City utilities and, therefore, no
extension of municipal utilities will be required. A pad mount transformer may be necessary to
accommodate the new square footage.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings and conditions for approval of the Site and Design application are attached
(Attachments E and G).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Planning Commission review of the project was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the new addition and,
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The
Negative Declaration was made available for public review prior to the first Zoning
Administrator’s hearing from June 26 to July 16, 1998 and is attached to this staff report (see
Attachment D).
ACTION TIME LIMIT
Date of application: May 1, 1998
Date application deemed complete: June 26, 1998
Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete): December 26, 1998
Optional extension at applicant’s request (90 days): March 26, 1999
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to be
considered by the City Council on November 16, 1998.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Zoning Administrator minutes dated 7/16/98 and 10/1/98.
Attachment C: Variance approval letter from the Zoning Administrator dated 7/30/98 and
10/2/98.
Attachment D: Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration
Attachment E Findings of Approval for Site and Design
S:IPLANIPLADIV/402Opage.sr
10r2898
Page 6
Attachment F: Open Space Criteria Findings
Attachment G: Conditions
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Mid Peninsula Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, Ca
Committee for Green Foothills, 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Division Head Approval:
George White, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
S:/PLAN/PLADIV/4020page.sr
10t’28~
Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
PF
3865
OS
3885 \
3895
3905
3981
Project: 4020 Page Mill Rd
31105
Graphic Attachment I
to Staff Report
3995
4001
PF
OS
To Skyline
Blvd
EXCERPT MINUTES
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
OCTOBER 1, 1998
4020 Page Mill Road (98-V-10, 98-EIA-9): Application of Scott Selover and Kathleen Roskos
for Variance approval to construct an addition to an existing single family residence that is
setback 70 feet from Page Mill Road where 200 feet is required and covers 11.7% of the site
with impervious surfaces where 3.5% is the maximum coverage allowed. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Zoning District: OS.
Mr. White: I pointed out the this is actually the second time this is being for the Zoning
Administrator and the reason was that there was a discrepancy in the total coverage number of
square feet. The discrepancy has been since added into the calculation which is 11.7%.
Mr. Selover, Applicant: I clarified that is why they are here today, is to modify the application to
add the additional square footage for the swimming pool. To make sure that all the numbers on
the application and the variance jive with the plans that is submitted.
Mr. White: I also pointed out that this is also subject to site design approval. It will go before the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Ms. Grote: I noted that is tentatively scheduled for October 28, 1998 for Planning Commission
and November 16, 1998 for City Council.
Mr. White: I mentioned that he is not sure of the dates.
Ms. Grote: I commented that she has seen this application before and she doesn’t have any
questions for now.
Ms. Grote: I declared the public hearing open.
Ms. Grote: I declared the public heating close.
Ms. Grote: I mentioned that the previous testimonies and discussions will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
EXCERPT MINUTES Attachment B
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S HEARING
JULY 16, 1998
4020 Page Mill Road (98-V-10, 98-EIA-9): Application of Scott Selover and Kathleen Roskos
for Variance approval to construct an addition to an existing single family residence that is
setback 70 feet from Page Mill Road where 200 feet is required and covers 11.7% of the site with
impervious surfaces where 3.5% is the maximum coverage allowed. Environmental Assessment:
An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zoning
District: OS.
Mr. Scott Selover. 4020 Page Mill Road: The property is a 1-acre lot in an area zoned for 10
acres minimum because the zoning conditions are written around the 10-acre minimum lot size,
3.5% coverage permit being about 1400 square feet. When you convert that to the 1-acre lot that
we have, it now rounds up to be 1400 square feet, 10.4% is correct but the total impervious
surface is 4300 square feet, not 5669 square feet. 5669 square feet is the total over two stories.
When you take the house they have and make the addition they would like, they wind up with
4300 squ.are feet cover which gives them 10.4%. I believe that all the numbers on the plans that
were submitted are correct.
The other variance was for a setback which we live in an area where there is a 200-foot setback
and our lot is 256 feet deep. When you add in the 200-foot on the front and a 30-foot rear
setback, that gives us 20 feet to build in. The entire structure today is inside the 200-foot
corridor, so, any addition or modification to the hous6 would require a variance froin that 200-
foot to accept that requirement. We took a look at providing every oppommity to provide
¯ screening both from the Page Mill side where the corridor is. We have done a couple of things.
We looked for oppommities to bury the house down into the existing slope most dominantly the
garage itself. We have been able to nestle about 2/3 of the structure into existing vegetation and
then provide screening vegetation that would completely block the view of the addition from
Page Mill Road. On the back side of the house it is very visible. The existing house is set on a
knoll and has little .vegetation between us and our neighbor to the west. We took the opportunity
to contact both them and Dave Dockter, the Planning Arborist, on to developing a screening plan
and we incorporated the plans. What they are going to do by nestling down the house into
existing vegetation and by adding the screening vegetation is effectively screen all of the new
addition. We are not adding anything above the existing two stories. We are leaving the existing
house at the existing height, so I believe that all the additions we would be making would be
hidden behind the screening. We are continuing to work with the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District and we are colILrnitted to making sure that the screening is good. We liked to be
screened from them as much as they would like to be screened from us.
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: Are there other options rather than the setback behind the
house?
Mr. Selover: Correct. There were, sort of, two screening issues: 1) is a screening from the City
of Palo Alto Page Mill Road side which is where the 200-foot setbacks begin. The variance is to
move that part of the house toward Page Mill which actually turns out based on the side to be
most shielded part of the property. It is the part of the property that is furthest from Page Mill
where it would not need a variance. It is the one that has this greatest visible impact. It is the
one that moves out toward the public land and it is not part of what we are talking about. So, the
variance is really for the garage. The garage structure is what moving toward Page Mill, moving
from currently, I believe, about 120 feet from the street. We are moving toward the street
nestling down onto an existing hillside with the garage. That is really not visible from any of the
public lands to the North or the West of the property. With the addition of the screening
vegetation and moving the driveway as we are proposing, we can effectively screening that entire
addition from the Page Mill side. That is the variance that is on the Page Mill side and not on the
open space side.
Ms. Grote: Can you talk about the surrounding environment?
Mr. Selover: Sure. We have a house directly to the North of us which is below us. It was built
about 20 feet from the property line, Classic California, range of about 2400 square feet. To the
south of us is a two-story house which is also quite visible from the open space built about 20
feet from our property line. Across the street is a new construction that went in about 4 years ago
which is owned by Tony Tam and Cathy. Those are the three houses that are within eye sight of
our addition. We have reviewed these plans with all the neighbors and additionally the neighbor
behind Tony. I have signed letters from them that they reviewed the plans and we listened to
their input and they supported the proPOsals that we are making today.
Ms. Grote: Are there other houses nearby that also have been expanded or developed in the 200-
foot scenic setback?
Mr. Selover: I believe thitt all of them do. The house to our south, 4022, was actually
developed after the adoption of the open space rules and their garage is about 80 feet from Page
Mill Road. It has a coverage variance and it is a one-acre lot. The same type of variances we are
granted for the development of 4022.
Oalease note that the rest of the tape is unintelligible)
Ms. Grote: (Unintelligible)
Mr. John Baca, P.O. Box 8527, Stanford. CA: (unintelligible)
Ms. Grote: (Unintelligible). The public hearing is closed. I will issue a written decision within
10 days.
City of Palo Alto
Department ofPlanning and
Community Environment
Attachment C
Planning Division
Application No. 98-V-10, 98-EIA-9:4020 Page Mill Road
The application of Scott Selover and Kathleen Roskos for Variance approval to
construct an addition to an existing single family residence that is setback 70 feet
from Page Mill Road where 200 feet is required and which covers 11.7% of the
site with impervious surfaces where 3.5% is the maximum coverage allowed is
hereby approved.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
4020page.var
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties
in the same district in that the subject property is a legal parcel in the Ope,n
Space zoning district that is significantly substandard in terms of area (.97
acre where 10 acres is the district minimum) which serves to reduce the
allowable impervious coverage area to less than 10 per cent, or 1479 square
feet, of that allowed on a district standard 10 acre parcel. In addition, a
special 200 foot scenic setbackfrom Page Mill Road applies to the property
that, when combiiaed with the standard 30 foot side and 30 foot rear
setbacks required in the OS zoning district, effectively limits the building
site to an area measuring roughly 70 feet by 24 feet or an approximate area
of 1680 square feet.
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation or
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does
constitute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the
existing structure is located within the required special scenic setback and,
as a result, any addition to the existing structure would require variance
approval. In addition, a development pattern has been established in the
general area along Page Mill Road, and in particular on the two adjoining
similarly sized properties, that places houses and other residential property
improvements within the 200 foot scenic setback. The property is further
limited, due to its substandard size, to an allowable impervious coverage of
1479 square feet.
October 2, 1998
250 HamiltonAvenue
P.O. Box 10250
PaloAlto, CA94303
415.329.2441
415.329.2240Fax
.3.The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to property or
improvements inthe vicinity in that the proposal provides similar setbacks
from Page Mill Road as other properties in the immediate area. The
proposal also maintains the established setback pattem~ which conforms to
the minimum City standard for the OS District in relation to the adjacent
residences. In addition, the existing and proposed vegetation, the use of
earth tone building materials and non reflective glass and the minimal
massing of the room additions combine to effectively screen the proposal
from public and private views including those from the adjacent Mid
Peninsula Open Space District lands. The proposal has also been evaluated
under the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The resulting Negative Declaration, dated June 26, 1998,
determined that no potentially adverse impacts to the environment would
result from the proposed home addition.
CONDITIONS
This variance will only become effective once the applicant has received
approval for. the associated Site and Design Application (98-D- 4) from the
Palo Alto City Council.
Once City Council approval is obtained, for the associated Site and Design
Application (98-Dr-4), the applicant shall provide fmal. construction plans,
in substantial conformance with the plans dated 4/20/98 and revisions dated
6/17/98 on file in the Planning Division, that indicates the location of the
addition to the existing single family dwelling.
LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
October 2, 1998
4020page.var October 2, 1998
¯ NOTE
This Variance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become
effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as
provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter
shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with
information regarding the scheduled heating dates before the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Variance have not been
complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of
intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon.
Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning
Administrator may revoke the Variance.
AVariance which has not been used within one (1) year after the date 0f granting
becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend
the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him
before the expiration of the first year.
Applicant:Scott Selover and Katleen Roskos
4020 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, Ca 94022
Property Owner:Scott Selover and Katleen Roskos
4020 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, Ca 94022
CO:
Greg Evard, 416 Lerida Avenue, Los Altos, Ca 94024
Anne Moore, Director of Planning and Community Environment
4020page.var October 2, 1998
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of PIan n in g and
Community Environment " "
Application No. 98-V-10, 98-EIA-9:4020 Page Mill Road
Planning Division
The application of Scott Selc~ver and Kathleen Roskos for Variance approval to
construct an addition to an existing single family residence that is setback 70 feet from
Page Mill Road where 200 feet is required and which covers 10.4% of the site with
impervious surfaces where 3.5% is the maximum coverage allowed is hereby approved.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties
in the same ~listrict in that the subject property is a legal parcel in the Open
Space zoning district that is significantly substandard in terms of area (.97
acre where 10 acres is the district minimum) which serves to reduce the.
allowable impervious coverage area to less than 10 per cent, or 1479 square
feet, of that allowed on a district standard 10 acre parcel. In addition, a
special 200 foot scenic setback from Page Mill Road applies to the property
that, when combined with the standard 30 foot side and 30 foot rear
setbacks required in the OS zoning district, effectively limits the building
site to an area measuring roughly 70 feet by 24 feet or an approximate area
of 1680 square feet.
o The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation or
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and does
constitute unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the
existing structure is located within the required special scenic setback and,
as a result, any addition to the existing structure would require variance
approval. In addition, a development pattern has been established in the
general area along Page Mill Road, and in particular on the two adjoining
similarly sized properties, that places houses and other residential property
improvements within the 200 foot scenic setback. The property is further
limited, due to its substandard size, to an allowable impervious coverage of
1479 square feet.
4020page.var
250 HamiltonAvenue
P.O.Box 10250
PaloAlto, CA94303
415. 329.2441
415.329.2240Fax
July 30, 1998
o The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to property or
improvhments in the vicinity in that the proposal provides similar setbacks
from Page Mill Road as other properties in the immediate area. The
proposal also maintains the established setback pattern, which conforms to
the minimum City standard for the OS District in relation to the .adjacent
residences. In addition, the existing and proposed vegetation, the use of
earth tone building materials and non reflective glass and the minimal
massing of the room additions combine to effectively screen the proposal
from public and private views including those from the adjacent Mid
Peninsula Open Space District lands. The proposal has also been evaluated
under the applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The resulting Negative Declaration, dated June 26, 1998,
determined that no potentially adverse impacts to the environment would
result from the proposed home addition.
CONDITIONS
This variance will only become effective once the applicant has received
approval for the associated Site and Design Application (98-D- 4) from the
Palo Alto City Council.
Once City Council approval is obtained, for the associated Site and Design
Application (98-D- 4), the applicant shall provide final construction plans,
in substantial conformance with the plans dated 4/20/98 and revisions dated
6/17/98 on file in the Planning Division, that indicates the location of the
addition to the existing single family dwelling.
LISA GROTE
Zoning Administrator
July 30, 1998
4020page.vat July 30, 1998
NOTE
This Variance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become
effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as
provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter
shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with
information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Variance have not been
complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of
intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon.
Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning
Administrator may revoke the Variance.
A Variance which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting
becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend
the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him
before the expiration of the first year.
Applicant:Scott Selover and Katleen Roskos
4020 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, Ca 9430
Property Owner:Scott Selover and Katleen Roskos
4020 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, Ca 9430
CC:
Greg Evard, 416 Lefida Avenue, Los Altos, Ca 94024
Anne Moore, Director of Planning and Community Environment
4020page.vat July 30, 1998
Attachment D
CKI.,IS T FORM
10.
Project Title:4020 Page Mill Road
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:George White, Senior Planner
415-329-2230
Project Location:4020 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA
Application Number(s):98-V-10; 98-EIA-9
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Scott Selover/Kathleen Roskos
4020 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, Ca 94022
General Plan Designation:Open Space, Controlled Development
Zoning:OS, Open Space
Description of the Project: Application for Variance and Site and Design approval to
construct an addition to an existing single family residence that encroaches into the
required scenic setback from Page Mill Road and that includes impervious coverage
amounts in excess of the maximum allowed by Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
family lot.
North:
East:
South:
West:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Open Space (MPROSD)
1 1. Other public agencies whose approval is required. None.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings-of
Significance
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\402Opage.EIA.Page 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed .upon the proposed project.
X
Date
Director of ,mmunity Environment
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 ~ (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incerporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans.,- zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pa~}es where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sourcesused or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
1
2
!
3
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?4 X
b) Seismic ground shaking?4 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?4 -X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?4 X
e) Landslides or mudflows?4 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 4 X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?4 X
h) Expansive soils?4 X
I)Unique geologic or physical features?4 X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3,7,X
rate and amount of surface runoff?1 7
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 4,5 X
such as flooding?
c)3,17 X
d)
. e)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and
debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals
from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticidesfrom
landscape maintenance?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
Change in the quar~tity of ground waters, either
through direct’additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
3
3,17
3
X
X
X
g) Altered direction or rate ~)f flow of groundwater?3 X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of 6, 17 X
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 3 X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?3 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 6,8,9 X
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9 X
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9 X
any change in climate?
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant act
Impact
d) Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?10 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 10 X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 10,X
uses?11,
12
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?3, 10 X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?10 X
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 10 X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?3 X
7. BIOLOGICAL-RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or inteiference in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 8, 16 X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) ¯ Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8 X
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 8 X
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?8, 16 X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8 X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 X
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 8 X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
xl
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 7
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 13 X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan 11,X
or emergency evacuation plan?12,
13
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 3, 12,X
hazard?13
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 3, 12,X
health hazards?13
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,3, 12 X
grass or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?6, 8,X
14
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?14 X
1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?8, 12 X
b) Police protection?8, 11 X
c) Schools?8 X
d)Maintenance of public.facilities, including roads or 8 X
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?8 X
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?15 X
b) Communications systems?15 X
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 15 X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?15 X
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality contr~)l?15 X
f) Solid waste disposal?15 X
g) Local or regional water supplies?! 5 X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 8
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
3
3
3
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
8
8
8
8
15. RECREATION.- Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community; reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c)Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\402Opage.EIA.Page 9
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EtR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ® (3} (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom Vo County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1 980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended)
2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49
3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1 994
5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1 989.
6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department
8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994
9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1 994
10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
11 City of Palo Alto Police Department
12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division
14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1 994
1 5 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 10
16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
1 7 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1 985
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 11
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
3a,b,
c,f,g,
h
4a,g
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk
area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure,
including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults
cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All
new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC)
which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing toss of life and property in the event of an
earthquake.
Construction of the project will increase the amount of landscaping on site and slightly increase the
amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography. Site soil modifications
are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will
not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and
drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
WATER
With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant
and by project completion, there will not besignificant additional runoff from the site due to the increase
in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use. The standard conditions of
approval will require that a drair~age plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and
from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management
practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with
the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Occupancy of the proposed residence, including the driveway, swimming pool and other impervious
surfaces, will increase the amount of storm-water runoff leaving the site over the existing, undeveloped
condition. As required by standard conditions of approval the developer will be required to prepare a final
grading plan for approval by the City.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 12
10a
12
13a,
b
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The City Planning Arborist has reviewed the project plans and has determined that no significant
biological resources are impacted by the proposal. The applicant proposes to remove three trees: two
mature Monterey Pines in fair-to-poor health and replace them with two 36 inch box trees, and one
young Monterey Pine at the driveway entrance at the request of the Planning Arborist. This tree wilt be
replaced with an appropriate landscape design feature. All other existing trees on site will be protected
and retained
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
NOISE
Construction of the proposed addition will increase noise emissions for existing residences on Alexis
Drive and other nearby residential streets. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment
associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the dwelling and accessory structures. ¯
Such noise will be short term in duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval,
which limits hours of construction. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new dwelling
would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated.
Mi{igation Measures: None required.
UTILITIES
A padmount transformer is required .on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, a utilities
easement will be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the existing primary stub
conduit, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the
transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the property that is used for
the transformer be developed. Should this occur, the owner of the proposed project would be required to
relocate the transformer when needed. As a condition of project approval, the property owner will be
required to address the situation in writing.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
AESTHETICS
Construction of the proposed addition will expand an existing structure in a primarily open space area.
The proposal will not result in the additional obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the public.
The addition will be visible from portions of Page Mill Road and portion of the trails in the Mid Peninsula
Open Space District. The proposal will mitigate the potential visual impacts by integrating the structures
and the driveway with the existing natural surroundings, providing additional landscape screening along
the rear property line and by utilizing natura! building materials, including non-reflective glazing, and
existing mature vegetation.
Mitigation Measures:None required.
(S:\plan\pladiv\eia\4020page.eia)
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\4020page.EIA.Page 13
ATTACHMENT "E"
Findings for Approval
Site and Design Review
4020 Page Mill Road
98-D-4
The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby
sites; in that the proposed use and improvements are similar in size, scale and
design with other uses in the area and the project has been designed and will be
sufficiently screened so as not to impact the neighbor’s privacy or enjoyment of
their property.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area; in that the project will maintain
desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and
size of the residence and related improvements are generally consistent with the
existing residences on Page Mill Road and nearby roads, and the construction of
the residential addition will be governed by the current Uniform Building Code
and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development.
Sound principles of envirorimental design and ecological balance will be observed
in construction of the project," in that the proposed design will follow existing site
contour lines to minimize site grading. The project will not have a significant
environmental impacts as indicated by the Negative Declaration prepared for this
project. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be consistent with the Open
Space Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of development
in the foothills area of the community.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Except for the
impervious coverage and scenic setback requirements for which Variances have
been obtained from the Zoning Administrator, the proposal will be compatible
with goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the "Policy Section" of this
report. The proposed residential use and related site improvements comply with all
other applicable OS Zone District Site development regulations and conform to the
intent of the Open Space/Controlled Development land use designation to allow
limited residential development to minimize physical impacts of development.
ATTACHMENT "F"
Open Space Criteria Findings
4020 Page Mill Road
98-D-4
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The
proposed addition will be visible from Page Mill Road and from the public trail in the
adjoining MSOSD lands. Extremely distant views of the site can be obtained from Skyline
Boulevard. This visibility will be mitigated by the existence of mature trees and vegetation
on the site and by the inclusion of new native trees and shrubs as shown on the landscape
plan. The visual impact of the new addition will also be minimized by the use of natural
building materials and earthtone colors.
2. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighboring properties. The proposal is screened from public and private views by mature
trees and other vegetation. The proposed landscape plan provides additional screening from
the open space lands to the west and from the single family dwelling to the south.
3. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped,, in relation to the area surrounding
it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural
habitats. The proposal sets the building mass into and along the natural contours of the site,
and uses varying rooflines and building elevations to provide visual relief. In addition, the
proposal utilizes well designed architectural features that fit into the overall architectural
composition and add visual interest and scale to the house.
4. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography: Building lines
should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance. The proposed building masses follow the hillside and the additional floor area is
kept close to grade to minimize bulk and create opportunities to relate the building to the site.
The proposal integrates the house on the site by use of varied roof forms and building shapes
that break up mass. Also, the proposal provides an efficient use of space within the building
envelope.
5. Existing trees with a minimum circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation
should be retained as much as possible. The two mature pine trees proposed to be removed
are in poor to fair condition and will be replaced with healthy 36 inch box trees in the same
general location on the site. All other significant vegetation will remain.
6. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should
never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize
the need for grading. The proposal is sensitive to the topography because it follows or cuts
into the site contours to avoid excessive grading. Fill amounts will be limited to the area
adjacent to the rear of the structure to allow for the patio and swimming pool area.
Z To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of
impervious surfaces should be avoided The proposal avoids large expanses of impervious
surface by limiting hardscape areas to the building footprint and proposed swimming pool.
8. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The proposal
incorporate materials that include stucco siding, stone veneer, glass and metal roofing at have
a natural earth tone color similar to those found in the natural environment. The proposal
uses the different materials and colors to break up the apparent mass of the new addition
relative to the existing residence. Also, the architectural detailing and stepping of building
mass create shadows appropriate to the natural hillside setting.
9. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be Used as afire prevention technique.
The proposal has incorporated native-species and drought resistant trees, shrubs and plants
in the landscape plan that conserve water and require little irrigation.
10. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site. The proposal is conditioned to require any accent lights for pedestrian
pathways and pool area to direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding
residences and open space lands.
11. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foot-hills environment). The site has
direct access off of Page Mill Road and no new curbs, gutters or sidewalks are proposed. The
driveway will remain as apervious, decomposed granite surface.
ATTACHMENT "G"
Conditions for Project Approval For
4020 Page Mill Road
98-D-4
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
1.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building
permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other
landscape features.
Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division.
All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away
from the surrounding residences and open space lands.
City. Planning Arborist
3. As shown on the revised landscape plan, the two mature Monterey Pine tree to be
removed shall be replaced with two 36" box size Coast Redwood or Douglas Fir
trees planted so as to improve screening of the structure from Page Mill Road. The
small Monterey Pine to be removed near the driveway entrance shall be replaced
with appropriate landscaped features as indicated on the revised landscape plan
Provision shall be made for automatically irrigating all plantedtree and
shrub areas, including supplemental irrigation for the two mature Monterey
Pine to be retained.
Per the revised landscape plan, an appropriate shrubbery shall planted as a buffer
continuing from the existing Douglas Fir on the West to the eastern end of the pool
area.
A Tree protection and preservation instructions sheet shall accompany the plans
submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm,
Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and
Irrigation Plans. Conditions #3-8 shall appear on the this plan.
All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown
on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be-retained.
7.The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the applicant or
project arborist verifying that protective tree fencing is in place before demolition,
grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the City
Planning Arborist.
All trees to be retained, with the exception of two mature Monterey Pines and one
young Monterey Pine at the driveway entrance, as shown on the approved plans
shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Arborist. The location of all tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on
submitted plans for building permit. The following tree pres.ervation measures
apply to all trees to be retained. The City Arborist shall have discretion to make
modifications, in writing, to the specific requirements of this condition if
warranted by field conditions if it can be demonstrated that the health of the tree is
not adequately protected.
No
All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with five-foot high chain
link fences enclosing the entire dripline under the trees. Each tree shall be
mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground
every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be erected before
construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection, except
during work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under
the trees to be protected. (As shown on Public Works Standard
Specification Detail #505, which shall appear on the plans.)
A "Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection fence.
The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and shall state: "WARNING
- Tree Protection Fence - This fence shall not be removed without prior
authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. Violators are
subject to fine pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the PAMC."
Fire
The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the Fire Department in
accordance with 1995 CBC and Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
California Fire Code. Details shall be provided on automatic sprinkler system, fire
hydrant location, fire/smoke alarm systems and brush cleating and greenbelting plans.
Utilities Engineering Electrical
! 0. If service is proposed to be upgraded to greater than 400 amps, a padmount
transformer will be required on site. The location of the padmount transformer
shall be indicated on the site and landscape plans for review and approval by
Utilities Department and Planning Department staff.
Public
11.
Works Engineering
A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be
presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public
Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan
showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan should show spot
elevations of existing and proposed grades that show how drainage patterns work.
Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show how
drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed.
12.Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April
15 to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain
fluctuations.
23.An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to
presented with the Building Permit submission.
Utilities Engineering
13. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility
Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992.
14.The applicant shall submit improvement plans and Water-Gas:Wastewater
application including load demands for existing and new facilities. The plans must
show the proposed alignrrl_ ent ofwaterl gas, and sewer mains and services within
the development and in the public right-or-way.
15.All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with requirements of
California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive.
Contact Morris White at 650-496-6972, City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector
to determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow into the public
water supply.
16.The contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement
plan have been approved by the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Engineering
Division.
17.Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work
performed by the City of Palo Alto.
DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
City_ Planning Arborist
18.Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that
overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist.
19.The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be
retained:
a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within
the tree enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
c.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
Public Works Engineering
20.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management
practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with
respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public
Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint; chemicals, etc.) or other
waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act)