HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-17 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
6
DATE:MAY 17, 1999 CMR:246:99
SUBJECT:APPLICATION OF FRANCOISE KIRKMAN, LEAH FELIZ-AND
BRAUDILIO FELIZ FOR A VARIANCE AND SITE & DESIGN
APPROVAL AT 3810 PAGE MILL ROAD FOR A TWO-STORY
ADDITION_.TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND TO CONSIDER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE PROJECT (FILE NOS: 99-EIA-1, 99-V-3, 99-D-1)
RECOMMENDATION " -
The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration (Attachment C of the Planning Commission report), with a finding that the
project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and approve the Variance and
Site and Design applications for a two-story addition to an existing two-story, single-family
residence, based on the f’mdings and conditions (Attachments D, E, F and G of the Planning
Commission report). ..._
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the foothills, adjacent to the Mid Peninsula Open Space District and
Foothills Park and is zoned Open Space (OS). The applicants propose to construct a two-
story addition to their existing two-story home. Site and Design approval is required for any
development, construction or improvements in the OS district. Additionally, the applicant-
is requesting approval of a Variance to allow the proposed addition to: (1) encroach into the
minimum 200-foot Special Setback from Page Mill Road, where the applicant proposes’ a
setback of 47 feet; (2) exceed the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 3.50
percent to a maximum of 4.61 percent;-and (3) exceed the maximum allowed height limit of
25 feet to a maximum of 28½ feet. For a more detailed analysis of this project, please refer
to the Planning Commission staff report and attachments (Attachment B).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND COMMENTS
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999. The-minutes from
-that meeting are included as Attachment A to this report. The Commission recommended
CMR:246:99 Page 1 of 2
(on a 7-0 vote) that the Negative Declaration, Variance and Site and Design applications be
approved per the findings and conditions attached to the Planning Commission report.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:_ planning Commission minutes, dated 04/28/99
Attachment B: Planning Commission report and attachments, dated 04/28/99
Attachment C: Correspondence
Photo simulation of project showing addition (City Council Members only)
Plans (City Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:Nancy M. Hutar, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY:George White, Planning Manager
G. EDWARD GAWF .....
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY~IARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CC:Francoise Kirkman, Leah and Braudilio_Feliz, 3810 Page Mill Road, Los Altos, CA
94022
cMR:246:99 . -~ Page 2-of2
: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
44
April 28, 1999
REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
EXCERPT of dra-~ft minutes of the
Palo Alto Planning Commission
meeting of April 28, 1999.
Attachment A
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink
Patrick Burr
Sta
Furth,
’ Arborist
Planner
Planner
to
Byrd: I’d like to call tonight’s
May I ask that the clerk please
the Commission
The first on our agenda tonight
ORAL
Is there here Oral Communications. Seeing none,
we’ll ~-
AGENDA DELETIONS.
I’d like to -’ii~ the audience and for those who may be -
was some by members .of the public earlier this
week whether would be testimony or comments from the
Reports on the subjects of a Transportation Commission
our review of Shuttle Plan. The C!ty Attorney"~ advised me that in fact we are
¯to accept tl~0~,mment~,. I’m presuming, unless the Ct~ssion has a problem, that
hear from.A ~cs of the public on those subjects.. ~
~#~’~:o approval of Minutes of March 30, 1999. Does anyone ~ comments or a
~20mmissioner Schmidt: I move approval..-"~.
City of Palo Alto Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings.
3810 Page Mill Road*: Application by Francoise Kirkman, Leah Feliz and
Braudilio Feliz for a Variance and Site and Design review to construct a two-story
addition to an existing two-story, single-family residence on a 1:55 acre site.
Approval of the Variance would allow for the proposed addition to: 1) encroach
into the special setback of a minimum 200 feet allowed from Pa Road (the
applicant proposes a setback of 47 feet); 2)
impervious surface coverage of 3.5 Percent
and 3) exceed the maximum alloWed height
28-112 feet). Approval of the Site and ~gn
permitted in the OS district for any
Environmental Assessment: A
District: OS. File Nos. 99-EIA-1,
scheduled to be heard by the City
17, 1999 in the Council Chambers.
allowed
4.6 percent);
for all
been
This
hearing at 7:00 PM on May
Staff: At this point I’d like to turn the mike
this item.
Hutar project planner for
M~
review to construct a two-story
acre site located at 3810 Page
Staff recommends that the
negative de
impacts,
and
sensitive to
which
Design app
of the
tothe the
ike to correct
second
With
and
and Site and Design
single-family residence on a 1.55
Negative Declaration for the project.
that the City Council approve the
that not result in significant environmental
and application based on the findings
Staff believes that the proposed addition is, first of all,_
it would exist with respect to its size and design
of a project in the Open Space district and Site and
are aspects of the site and its situation to render Support
the Variance. Staff has received and passed out-tiffs evening
from John Baca. In response to Mr. Baca’s e-mail, Staff
record, on page 14 of the Environmental Assessment, third
that the number 3.7% be changed t.o 3.~96%. That was a typing
other points brought up in the correspondence, Staff believes that a
was provided in the EA for the project. Staff based their analysis
sources listed, site-viSits ah-d meetings with the applicant and architect,
project, this situation, the environmental setting, views, etc., and the self-
~ the City’s conditions of approval. We have members of Staff here to answer any
of your questions. I know that the applicant and architect are in the audience.
Mr. George White. Planning..]kJalg_ag~: If I could make one additional comment in the realm of
City of Palo Alto --Page 3
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
44-
typographical corrections. On page 13 also, the 3.7% should be changed to 3.96%. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? Seeing none, we
will openthe public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant’s representative to make the
first presentation. You have 15 minutes to present your project and I would ask you please to
state your name and address for the record.
Ms. Leah Feliz, applicant. 3810 Page Mill Road. Palo Alto:
the project that we are requesting. The design that we have come
amount of impervious surface coverage that we would add the
the roof being a shed roof. ~-It mimics the topography
the existing house, and fits very well with the existing
and looking at possibilities it was very difficult house
that we don’t want to touch. There isn’t a lot of area~
did need to go up in order to satisfy all of the
important to the open space as well as not increasing
Tonight we are
house
one,
to you
mininuz" es the
as the design of
is standing
we
are
We have here some photographs that show the
shed roof and how it impacts the views. The
around the plan-in the general area of where
we’ve
an idea of the existing
the board they are
The next board that we have, and we
photographs of the existing house
photographs of the final property,
once the roof was on from
everywhere else it is difficult to
up Page I
towards
is gate
by a
for you to keep, we have
tesign in place. Below some
showing how it would look
see the house. Pretty much
these are the two views. One is just
for Hill Park, you are looking back down
on Page Mill Road, just in front of the
Also on this
wood
the
Class
on
Class A.
roof with
which they
~oi~i’ean see that on o
orn, i~a~distance
for the shingling. Right now the house is done with
that but we plan tO change, any new building will have-
retardant, at lease Class C but we are going to look into
to redo the two roofs over where we are PrOPOSing to add
shingles. The material we could use would be a cement
some very light .weight tinted shingles that do mimic _real shingles.
flyers that’s attached there. We’ve looked at that on housing and
both shed roofs are up higher, they look exactly like the real shingles.
Then the photographs for
you to keep. There are two’copies again of what you saw on the board.
It is possible on that model to remove the new roof and to look inside. Again, the only additional
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43-
impervious surface will be the room towards the back of the house :which is 434 square feet.
Right now that part of the house has" a wooden deck which is pretty much on the ground. The
gradiiag-is pretty much done already for us. It is a very flat part of the house which is another
reason for selecting that area to construct. It was already graded when the house was built. We
would need to only do a very small amount of grading because the new piece will go out a little
bit further than where the deck is now. The grading would be about a square yard.
Mr. Richard M0rrall. Architect. 1158 Chestnut Street. Menlo Park: I
referring to the letter from Mr. Baca, the runoff and so on, the way the
hill coming down basically following the slope of the roof
[culvert] that runs through underneath the middle of the
the property. Otherwise the house would act as a dam So es~,
towards the hill, we are going to collect it and put it in that
big enough or take it around the side of the house flat
now comes through a [scupper] on the northwest side So
is go!ng to end up in the same place.
Ms. Feliz: I think that’s pretty much all of the proj
Chairman Byrd: Commissioners, have
comment,
with the
catch basin and
back of
shed it
IS
wa~r
time?
Thank you very much.-
Are there other members of the
the public hearing-and bring
If you have Staff~
wis speak item? Seeing none, I will Close
for discussion.
ask them:
is that
Mr. White:
that’s the
the size
,~. There is no floor, area ratio in the Open Space District,
on coverage 0nly.
houses normally be allowed to build up to 6,000 square feet
for the City?
there?
Or is that not a factor considered? How do you--
believe house size is still 6,000 square feet but I have to check the code to
while we are discussing this.
Cassel: That’s all I could f’md in the code when I ran through it. So would this
house normally be allowed to build up to 6,000 square feet then?
Mr, White: Presuming that they had the coverage to do so, yes.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~.2
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
44
Commissioner Burt: Is this house visible from Foothills Park?
Ms. Hutar: No, it is not visible.
Commissioner Schink: To get the ball rolling, I’d like to move the Staff recommendation.
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Commissioner Schink: If I could speak to it briefly.
provides us with the findings for the Variance.is
has very minimal impact, it is well under what is in the
Commissioner Schmidt: Bern and I visited the site on
the house. The owner was very happy to show us not
They have lived in this location for something like 30
Space lot size requirements as our Staff report says.
hide it from any views as well as enhance the
very nice job of keeping well and that the
is hardly visible as can be seen from _the
believe that the project meets all of the
Staff report. So I also support this.
walked .gh
but the model and so on.
house prior to the Open
it to really help
the~y have done a
minimal change that
~have been created. I do
for Site and Design as per
Commissioner Beecham: Well,
a very nicely designed house.
as can be as out
where
a
there. So
on this very well. I think this is
environment. It is tucked in as well
to examine the view shed to f’md out
almost all scenes around it. I must it has
think anybody in Fremont will be looking back at you
the hou
for
CO~l~ated. I haven’t
wit~ihe findings
here?
the house today and you could see the story poles on
see. I was having some problems with the findings of approval
referring back to if they did a second. It just seems____ .......
with the project itself. Do we get into any trouble later on
back continuously to if we did a one-story because we are not really
it’s a one-story, we’re only comparing what’s here? Is this appropriate
I think that it is important to the extent possible
that when granting Variances you first make sure that.they are not do’rag any
harm. That one, I believe, is an easy f’mding for everybody to make. The one that is more
complicated is what standard you apply when you’re trying to decide whether a house should be
expanded. Even if_ s_omebody _makes the case that they are doing it in the most sensitive
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
appropriate way, how much of an expansion is appropriate and are the people entitled to as a
t-easonable use of this property, and at what point does it turn into special privilege for a small
lot. I believe Staff’s conclusion is that we don’t know exactly where that line is but that this
addition is on the permissible comparable use of the piece of property and not on the special
privilege side. If there are better ways to articulate that, that the CommissiOn could suggest, we
would welcome them.
Commissioner Cassel: I just didn’t think we needed to add all the language
if it is a single-story versus a two-story. It just seemed like it was
needed to be. Not that I disagree with the f’mdings at all.
happens
than it
I think the height of the building being the same height
using two-stories instead of one-story where there is a
unusual shape of the property is a-valid concern b~
circumstances. The necessity to provide this without
have other sites that we’re not quite sure of up there in
a lot of them.
other
sonable loss ,. We
circumstance but there aren’t
Ms. Furth: I think part of the reason we
was because it was a Variance, Nancy may
height and the coverage. We probably
variance rationale and when we were
of two-stories is more attuned to the
is
versus one-story
i Variance to both the
talking about the height
Really the discussion
Commissioner Burt: I concur
compatible design and the
area that I some stru
Variance
-if a
can
is
_ o_ther Commissioners about the
the basis for the Variance. The one
D, the findings for the approval of the
talked about a loss in property value
if you could comment on that premise. Whether that
don’t grant a Variance.
Ms.-Furth:in ou~: ~’mdings because we don’t believe that is the
standard a lot that was lawfully created and lawfully developed
long these It is very easy to say, of course they need a Variance
for foot setbackI otherwise it is unbuildable lot. I think it is easy to articulate the
why a height is appropriate because it just works better for the criteria the City
~ tgn in that The one that is harder to articulate is how much do you-get to add to
We is has to be something pertaining to the land not the household. I mean,
a variance though it may be the basis for the application. We did not say
of economic hardship. We are sure it is a valuable_property as it stands.
felt that it was developed with what is a rather small house for both this size lot
anywhere in the City and particularly in that area, and that it could be done with that small
increment without any detriment or without any sense that you were granting special privileges.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: What is the square footage-of the existing home?
Ms. Hutar: The existing square footage is about 2,144.
Chairman Byrd: About a 2,100 square foot house.
Commissioner Cassel: I did the FAR. It comes out to .048. It’s
Ms. Furth: The other circumstance which you may have
cases people can deal with the impervious surface
surface on the driveway. But again, because of the
that it has a steep access, they can’t do that. So
impervious area allotment simply to get to the house,
time ago.
that in
a
1S
was develo a long
Commissioner Bialson: I generally agree with the
especially struck by the analysis the Staff did
this parcel if it was located in either the RE
done improvement in a very sensitive area
I appreciate what they’ve been able to
Commissioners. I was
be built on
t. I think this a well
shown by the applicant.
this Variance.
Chairman Byrd: Like
difficult lot. The question is
fmdings for the Site and Desi
have to
to
square a
is
tough lot and
project isn’t
clearly
in
the best
It at all clear to
this very sensitive treatment for a very
the for the Variance approval. I think
second f’mding about whether we
)yment of a substantial property right and
or hardship, is harder for me to find. A 2,100
house. It is harder for me to make the finding that a
It is not a question about building a new house on this
loss involved here because nothing is lost if the
there is an unnecessary hardship. The house has
and the-question is whether ornot the additional impervious
the granting of this Variance. I can sort of count noses
’m struggling with how to make that second f’mding in this case.
~that that is as easily made as Staff suggests.
try because this is why I asked about the 6,000 square feet because
t=ha~wa~~~6n m my rmnd. They would be able to put a 6,000 square foot house on this
l~i~if_~:: ~.~°~:’ ~’~’~ ~ape and the slope of the lot or they would come m" with some way of doing it
~_hu~ ~the~narrowness of the lot, it is not that the value is there, that’s one of the problems I had.
It is not that they lost value. There is nothing in Palo Alto that has lost value even if you take the
house off it these days, it keeps going up. So it is the fact that reasonably they could add to the
site to add more square footage to the house and they can’t do that in any way on the site that it
City of Palo Alto -~ Page 8
:1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44-
is, and for me, that is the unusual circumstances.The part of it that it meets.
Commissioner Schink: Well, I think we all realize that there is nothing reasonable about any
property values around here so it is hard to put this into proper context. But I think it is important
for us to look back at what we as a Commission have done in the past. One example I’d like to
point out to you is we, I believe, approved a Variance for Stanford University to allow a small
carport to be placed within a setback. If you could somehow find that there was a substantial
property right, a property value issue, we-could cross that hurdle for Stanford on Hill Road
I certainly think you can make the same finding in this set of facts.
Commissioner Beecham: I don’t know how the City
that these fmdings are binary. That is either they
gradations. For me, part of the decision is relative to
is being requested is essentially so benign to the
to give a shadow of a doubt decision, I’m certainly
able to find that there is a property right at risk here.
building a much larger facility I may have a
what’s being requested here I feel comfortable with
~i i understand your point Jon
different reason. The good news is
own and in this case Bern is r
project¯
or
being
but I never fred
They
for this I am
are coming in and they were
right. But given
though for a slightly
Each one stands on their
posed by this proposed
Mr. White: I’d like to take
maximum house size.
R-2, and it doesnot
to answer the question about
~quare feet provision only exists in R-l,
only limitation is lot coverage..
would be allowed on this lot.
Mr. White:
coverages
story,
Open District.
the footprint of the house or all the impervious
by code.. Now, obviously they could build a two-
ways to create floor area. We don’t assess it tha(way in the
¯ 5 % is what footprint?
did some calculations, it is insignificant. If it’s 3.5%, it has to include
got two-stories, you are lirniX-ed by essentiallytwo-stories and 3.5 % if you
out it, out of a huge lot. -
Mr. White: This lot is roughly one acre. A 3.5% of one acre is about 1,526 square feet.
.Chairman Byrd: Well, unless other Commissioners have additional comments I’d be inclined to
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
call the question. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes7-0.
Is it still correct that this item will go to Council on May 17th?
Mr. White: That is correct.
City ~f Palo Alto Page 10
PLANNING
Attachment B
COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Nancy M. Hutar DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
April 28, 1999
3810 PAGE MILL ROAD (File Nos: 99-EIA-1, 99-V-3, 99-D-1):
Application by Francoise Kirkman, Leah Feliz and Braudilio Feliz for
¯ a Variance and Site & Design Review to construct a two-story addition
to an existing two-story, single-family residence on a 1.55 acre site and
to consider_a Negative Declaration for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment C)Twith a finding that the project will not
result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Variance and Site and
Design Review applications for a two-story ~dditionto an existing t~vo-story, single-
family residence on a 1.55 acresite, based on the attached findings and conditions.
BACKGROUND
In 1972, the City of Palo Alto created an Op(hSpace (OS) zoning district to protect and¯ _
preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource and-topermit the reasonable
use of open space (Section 18.71.010 of the Municipal Code). The OS regulations place
certain conditions and restriction upon new development and additions to-existing =¯
development. The applicant filed a Variance application for the proposed project,
because the elements of the two-story addition do no comply with the OS regulations.
Approval of Site and Design Review is required for all uses permitted in the OS district -
--for any development, construction o_r improvements (Section 18.71.040). The applicants’
house was built in 1967, about five years before the creation of the OS district and the
200-foot Special Setback. These restrictions were placed on development in this area at
the time that the current ioriginal) owners were residing there.
s[lp!anlpladivlpcsr[3810pa.ge.sr Page 1
When the application was submitted, staff determined that the Variance request should be
for~varded directly to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, rather
than-requesting approval from the Zoning Administrator, because Section 18.90.105 of
the Municipal Code states that when approval is sought for a variance in conjunction with
a Site and Design Review application, both applications shall be processed concurrently
and through the same process. Since the Site and Design Rev.iew application is first heard
before the Planning Commission for recommendation, the Variance is presented here
also.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Information
The setting of the single-family home at 3810 Page Mill Road is rural and surrounded by
undeveloped open space. The 1.55acre site is’bounded on the west by Foothills Park
(which is part of the larger Foothills Open Space Preserve) and on the north by the Mid
-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. Table 1 summarizes the proposed development
compared to the Zoning Code development regulations.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PROJECT & CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS
3810 Page Mill Road
Standard
lot area minimum
impervious area & building
coverage maximum
maximum height
special setback from Page
Mill Road
standard setbacks
parking ~
Zoning Code
10 acres
3.,50 %
25 feet
200 feet
front - 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear- 30 feet-
4 spaces
(1 covered,
3 uncovered)
Existing
Development
L55 acres
3.96 %
29 feet
30 feet
front - 30 feet
side - 95/120 feet
rear - 10 feet
4 spaces
(1 coveredl"
3 .uncovered)
Proposed
Project
1.55 acres
4.61%
28½ feet
47 feet
front - 30 feet
side 95/120 feet
rear - 10 feet
4 spaces
(1 covered,
3 uncovered)
Deviation from
Zoning Code
-8.45 acres
+1.11%
+3½ feet
-1_53 feet
front - none
side - +65/90
rear - -20
none
s:lplanlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.st Page 2
.=2
Project Proposal
The applicant proposes to construct a tnvo-story addition that would add approximately
1,169 square feet to the existing 2,144 square foot home for a total of 3,313 square feet.
The site plan and sections (pages 1 and 2 of the blueprints) indicate that the addition
would be located at the west side of the existing residence. The first floor addition would
be located entirely to the rear of the house and the second floor section would be located
to the rear and to the front of the house. Required parking will be provided by the
existing four spaces (one covered and three uncovered), which are located outside of the
front and side setbacks. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the p~oject.__
The floor plans (pages 3 and 4) illustrate how the addition would be integrated with the
existing house. The existing house has t~vo bedrooms and one additional room attached
to one ot’the bedrooms that ig- used as a playroom. The addition would add one bedroom,
one bathroom, an office space (all on the Second floor) and an expansion of the play room
on the first floor. The footprint of the addition would add 15 feet to the rear of the house.
The width of the new footprint would be within the setback Of the existing structure.
The elevations (pages 5 and 6) indicate that the proposed construction materials will
match the existing wood siding. The addition would add a pitch to match the existing
roof pitch, but at a lower.overall height of 6 inches (the existing west side of the home has
a fiat roof). The entire roof would then be replaced v¢ith fire-retardant v¢ood shingles.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open
SPace/Controlled Development. This designation allows for some development on the
parcel. However, the proposed addition is considered an incidental development on the
site, because the site has already been developed with a single-family home. The addition
would add approximately 1,169 square feet to an existing 2,.144 square foot home for a -
total of 3,313 square feet. Table 2 summarizes the existing surrounding land uses ~and
designations.
s:lplan[pladivlpcsrl3 8 l0page.sr Page 3
TABLE 2
EXISTING USES AND DESIGNATIONS
3810 Page Mill Road
Location
North
South
East
West
Project site
....Existing Uses
Mid Peninsula Regional
Open Space District
Page Mill Road,
open space
open space
Foothills Park
single-family home
Comprehensive Plan
Publicly Owned
Conservation Land
Open Space/Controlled
Development - -
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Publicly Owned
Conservation Land
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Zoning ,,
Open Space/Special
Setback
¯ Open Space/Special
Setback
Open Space/Special
Setback
Public Facilities
Open Space/Special
Setback
Policy L- 1 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan indicates the tNlowing "...t0 retain
undeveloped land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area .... " Although the project site is west of the Foothill Free~vay and it is
not located within the City’s urban service area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan), it
is not undeveloped land, because it is already developed ~;vith a t~vo-story single-family
home. Therefore, the addition of a two-story section to the rear of the property is not in
conflict with this policy and the project is in compliance with the goals and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning ’
The Open Space/Special Setback district contains the following~regulations for individual
properties: (1) a minimum required lot area o.ften acres, (2) a maximum impervious area
and building coverage of 3.50 percent, (3) a minimum Special Setback district_along Page
Mill Road which prohibits development within 200-feet of the right-of-way, and (4) a
maximum height limit of25-feet.
A Variance is requested to allow for the proposed addition to: (1) exceed the maximum
allowed impervious surface coverage of 3.50 percent-to a maximum of 4.61 percent; (2)
.... encroach into the Spe.eial Setback of a minimum 200-feet allowed from Page Mill Road
wtiere the applicant proposes a setback of 47 feet; and (3) exceed the maximum allowed
-height limit of 25-feet to a maximum of 28½ feet. -
s:[planlpladivlpcsr13810page.sr - -Page 4
The lot was legally created in 1967, five years prior to the implementation of the OS,
Special Setback regulations. The entire lot is located within the 200-foot Special Setback
from Page Mill Road. The existing home already exceeds the maximum impervious lot
coverage at 3.96 percent, due to the size Of the lot. The existing home already exceeds
the height limit at 29 feet. The applicant is proposing to build up with two stories rather
than out, because the proposed second story portion of the addition is visually
unobtrusive. Therefore, impervious site coverage is minimized.
.SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Site and Design Review
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
existing carport and o_pen parking area. The proposed addition is located at the rear and
front of the home, along the west elevation, facing the Foothills Park.
Architectural Design
The proposal incorporates natural materials and colors in keeping with the existing
architectural qualities of the existing house. The design and proposed roof pitch mimic
the existing home and reinforce the natural quality of its surroundings.
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. No removal of trees or
vegetation is proposed as part of this project. Consistent with the rural surroundings, the
structure will be stained brown with a brown wood composition roof. The windows and
skylights are conditioned to be constructed with non-reflective glass. These materials and
colors combine to blend harmoniously with the partial impervious drive and walkways, as
well as the site’s natural surroundings.
Site Grading "
No cut or fill is proposed as part of the project. Minor grading will occur as part of the
standard foundation construction for the addition’s footprint.
Drainage --~-~
Site drainage will be provided through on-site percolation.
s:[planlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.sr Page 5
-.Utilities :
The existing residence is currently being served by City utilities and, therefore, no
extension of municipal utilities will be required.
Variance
Special Setback
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 ~vas 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 proposat
other~vise meets the standard front and side setback requirements of the OS zone district
(the rear setback is existing, non-conforming at ten feet from the property line).
Impervious Surfaces and Lot Coverage :
The existing home and driveway covers the lot with 3.96 percent of impervious surface
(2.77 percent for the existing house and 1.19 percent for the driveway), which already
exceeds the maximum allowable coverage of 3.50 percent. Site improvements related to
the proposed development would result in a total impervious coverage for the lot of 4.61
percent (3.42 percent for the house with the addition and 1.19percent for the driveway).
The applicants’ request for this component of the Variance is due to the lack of other
options for the location of the addition. As statedpL_e~ious_ly, the applicants decided to
build up with t~vo-stories rather than out with a single-story addition ifl order to preserve
open space. If th~ addition were to be contained entirely within a single-story, the lot
coverage would calculate to approximately 5.70 percent coverage (4.51 percent for the
house and 1.19 percent for. th~driveway). A single story addition would also result in the
loss of one or more mature, healthy trees. An option was pursued by staff to reconstruct
that part of the driveway which is concrete (.800 square feet) into some type of pervious
surface. However, the ’Fire-Depart.ment indicated that due to the steep grade_of_the
driveway, the concrete was necessary for Safety vehicle access.
s:[planlpladivlpcsrl3 8 lOpage.sr
The lot wascreated legally before the OS standards were set in place. If the lot were 10
acres, the maximum coverage of 3.5 percent would yield impervious surfaces of 15,246
square feet. This home has not been altered in 30 years and it current contains two
bedrooms and tnvo bathrooms within just over 2,100 square feet. For comparison, if the
home was located in the Residential Estate District of the Ci~’, which requires a
minimum lot size of one acre, the maximum allowable coverage is 25 percent which
calculates to approximately 16,836 square feet for this lot. The 3,313 square feet of total
house the applicant is requesting would be permitted on a lot of 7,362 square feet in the
R!~., R-1 and R-2 zones of the City.
Page 6
-_Height ~
The existing residence is 29 feet in height, which already exceeds the maximum
allowable height for the OS zone of 25 feet. The applicants’ proposed height is 28½ feet
for the addition, which also would exceed the maximum allowable height. As discussed
in the above section related to impervious surfaces, the applicants believe that a greater
environmental benefit is achieved by adding a second story rather than building the
addition entirely within a single-story.
If the lot was 10 acres, a better opportunity to build a single-story home or single-story
addition may be possible. However, as illustrated on the site plan and Section D (sheets 1
and 2 of the blueprints), the most level area of the site is where the proposed addition is
located. Locating the addition in other areas of the site or on a single-level would require.
the removal of healthy, mature trees or would increase the visibility of the addition from
public right-of-ways.
¯ For comparison purposes, in the Residential Estate District of the City (which is the most
comparable zone to this property) the maximum height allowed would be 30 feet. The
maximum height allowedin both the R-1 and R-2 districts is 30 feet. The Planning
Commission could condition the application to lower the roof pitch or to incorporate a flat
roof design for the addition so it will not exceed the 25-foot height limit. Staff believes
that although such conditions would eliminate the need for this-component of the
Variance request, the resulting architectural design would result in a less "harmonious" or
"compatible" building style. Additionally, as propased, the_new addition supports the
intent and goals of the Open Space District in that the design is not visually intrusive, the
forms and roof pitch mimic the natural topo~aphy and existing roof line, existing tress
are preserved, and no grading is proposed.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings and conditions for approval of the Variance, Site and Design applications and
the Op.en Space District are attached (Attachments D, E, F, 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.
s:lplantpladivlp~sri3 810page.sr
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared
fo.r.the project and determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
Page 7
ne~X, addition and, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the
environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from April
7 through April 28, 1999, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment C).
ACTION TIME LIMITS-
Date of application:
Date of application deemed compete:
Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete):
Optional extension at applicants’ request (90 days):
January 11,999
February 9, 1999
August 8, 1999
November 6, 1999
Following the Planning Commission hearing,, the project applications are tentatively
scheduled to be considered by the City Council on May 17, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: LocatiorrMap
Attachment B: _ Applicants’ project statem~nt
Attachment C: Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
Attachment D: Findings for Approval, Variance
Attachment E:Findings for Approval, Site & Design Review
Attachment F:Findings for Open Space Criteria
Attachment G:Conditions of Approval
Plans (Commissioners only)
COURTESY COPIES
Francoise Kirkman, Leah & Braudilio Feliz, 3810 Page Mill Road, Los Altos, CA 94022
Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 -
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Nancy M. Hutar k
George White, Planning Manager
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
s:lplan[pladiv[pcsr13810page.sr Page 8
ATTACt-E-MENT A
FOOTHI,LLS PARK
Project: 3810 Page Mill Rd
Graphi_c Attachment
to Staff Report
pm
OS
IO
Zoning Administrator
Department of Planning
and Community Environment
Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: -Kirkman;F~lizResidence
- 3810 Page Mill Road .
Los Altos, CA 94022
Janu~.ry 1.1, 1998
To the Zoning Administrator,
At 3810 Page Mill Road you come to the first house on Page Mill after an almost 2 mile
drive up from Moody Road. This house was built in the late 1960s and has a unique
architectural design. Covered with wooden shingles it blends well with it’s surroundings
of mostly natural chaparral. Around the sides of the house my father and mother planted
redwoods and oak trees which have now grown healthy and tall and successfully help to
camouflage the house from view. There is some landscaping close to the house, but
mostly we have preserved the natural vegetation. There are a couple of fruit trees to tl~e
East of the house as well.
The existing house on Page Mill Road has a dysfunctional floor plan. The house
currently has two bedrooms and we are 3 adults and 2 children. We would like to add an
additional bedroom, bathroom and family room to have appropriate living space and in
order to improve the value of the property. ~
In doing so we have come up with a plan which respects the design 0fthe house, making
the addition an asset to the property while respecting the limitation on space, as well as
protecting the trees which are planted close to the house. The design also respects the
environment which requires that a house blend in with the surroundings.
Our first variance request is with respect to the coverage of the property. The existing
houseon a property purchased and developed in 1967 already covers more-thanihe 3.5%
allowed (.house 2,144 sq. ft., pavement 620 sq. ft., total 2764 sq. ft. on 1.546 acres = 4.1%
existing coverage). The proposed addition would add only 468 sq. ft. in coverage (4~/’~
total covei’age)
This property is only h546 acres, having been purchased and developed in
1967, and therefore the limitation on coverage, based on a 10 acre or more
lot, would prevent this properiy from ever being improved.
The granting of the variance is needed for us to be able to improve said
property in order to maintain it’s value and make space appropriate for
property, owner/residents. The inability to increase the sa,’~’e.._, footage_ of
.the property would prevent us from living here due to la:k of space and
-would cause a loss in property value (the house was built in the 1960’s and
needs improvement). Our proposed addition would add space by creating
a second story and would thereforekeep the increase in coverage to a
minimum.
"The granting of the ~variance’ will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safe!y, general welfare or convenience." Our closest
neighbor is more than a mile away. The house is not easily visible from
many places and the proposed addition ,,,,’ill have it’s greatest impact on
the back of the house.
Our second variance request involves the 200 foot "Scenic Corridor" setback. The
property line ends well-before this setback (again the property having been purchased and
developed in the 1960’s), which means the house could never be improved if this
variance is not granted. The current residence already exists within this setback and the
proposed addition would be mostly to the back of the house. As with the Variance on
coverage, without being b.ble to develop this property we would be unable to continue
living here due to lack of space and the value ofthe house would be affected negatively.
Please see "c" above as it would be the same for this variance.
Our third variance request involves "height limit". Our addition, in order to limit our
increase in coverage and preserve the trees planted close to the house, proposes a secc~nd
story’. In order to maintain the integrity of the building we would like to maintain the
roof design already existing on the other half of the house. This shed roof. rises,to 29 feet
at a steep 8 ~/~ feet-in-12 feet pitch. We had originally designed the new addition to be 32
feet high, but were asked to reconsider going over-the existing roof height. Therefore, we- -
have comeup ~vith a new design which lowers the height to 28.6 feet (lower thanthe
existing roof). Changing the roof pitch to lower the peak would make it impossible to
maintain adequate height within the structure without raising the front wall.. This would
make a greater visual, impact, and would destroy the architectural integrity of the
building.
Most ofthe roof including the highest point, ‘,~’0u’lT:t be hidden behind our redwood trees
and woul~l not be ‘,’isible from anywhere offthe property (see photographs). This
‘,vould respect the environment which requires that the house blend into the surroundings.
The slanted roof echoes the slope of the hill on which it sits. Again, without granting this
variance, it becomes difficult for us to improve the pr_operty gi.ven the limitation on space
around the house, the need to add on in a manner which improves the value of the
property, and the need to create a roof’line which is not offensive to it’s surroundings.
Please see "c" abor,-e as it also applies to this variance. _
We value the philosophy of the Open Space District and have spent man?’ .,,’ears
su~oonin_-, the parks and the Open Space in general. \Ve understand w>,,. vou have put
¯-." inta place limitations and restrictions in order to protect tb, is zone. We ,,vouId like to
come to an agreement and ask for your support in granting our request for .variances on
this existing property. This would allow us to continue enjoying our liv, es in this
privileged area while maintaining our property value.
We thank you for your time and assistance in working through this process with us.
Sincerely,
Leah and Braudilio F~liz (applicants)
Fran~oise Kirkman (owner/applicant)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Pal. Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
t
10.
Project Title:-
Lead Agency Name and Address: ,
3810 Page Mill Road
City of Pal. Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal. Alto, California 94301- ----
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner
650-329-2441
3810 Page.Mill Road
Pal. Alto, California
99-EIA-1, 99-V-3 & 99-D-1 -
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
General Pla~ Designation:
Francoise Kirkman, Leah & Braudilio Feli~
3810 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, California 94022
Open SpacelControlled Development
Zoning:Open Space (OS), Special Setback
Description of the Project: An application for Variance and Site and
Design Review approval to construct .a two-story addition to an existing two-story, single-
_ family residence on a 1.55 acre site. Approval of the Variance w6uld allow for the
proposed addition to! (1) encroach into the Special Setback of 200-feet from Page Mill
Road (the existing house already encroaches into the Special Setback area); (2) exceed the
maximum impervious surface coverage of 3.5 percent (the existing parcel already exc_eeds
the lot coverage at approximately 3.7 percent); and (3) exceed the maximum height limit
of 25-feet (the existing house already exceeds the height limit at 29 feet). Approval of the
Site and Design Review is required for all uses permitted in the OS district for any
development, construction or improvements (Section 18.71.040).
Surrounding Land Uses and-Setting:I~orth: open space, Foothill Park
o.East: open space
South: Page Mill Road, open space
~.YYest: open space
1.t.. 1.-Other public agencies whose approval is required.
S .P’-,4,’~’,m’.-4-OI~,EI,4 ’,3810page,n~-w [4 C6, 93/
None.
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.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
GeologylSoils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
PopulationlHousing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project propone_nt. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION v~ll be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) ha.s been adequately analyzed-
i~ 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. 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, bec_ause
all poten~ally significardLeffects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
D_ECLARATION.pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR o~ NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
Nancy M. ,H’iJtar, Cont,=act Planner
~-.C_,_~w’f, ,DireCtor ~f Planning and
Cc~rnmunity Environment
Date
Date
EVALUATION oF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
2)
4)
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 sourcesshow that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "N~ 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 pollutan!s, 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.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
muz.~ indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an--~ffect may be
significan.t. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant VVith Mitigation Incorporated" applies where tlie incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less~lhan Significant
Impact." The lead agency must desc.ribe the mitigation measures, and bdefiy 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 effe.ct has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (o) (3) (D). In this casea
brief discussion should identify the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)Impabts 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 w~th Mi~gation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document add t_he.
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informatio~ sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances), Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should.
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the-statement is substantiated. _
7)Suppor’,ing Information Sources: A source list should be attached, .and other sources used oj" individuals---~
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the ~lUeStions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
__ a) The significance criteri~ or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
IIssues and Supporting Inforrn.,don Sources Significant
PotentiallVSignificant
Unless
I~,t~t,gation
Incorporated
Less Than
~ig n~,ficant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
i1.
b)
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,3,4
1,3,4
1,3,4
1,3,4
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Ca|ifomia Dept. of Conserva~:ion as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts-on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
c)
Ill.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
VVilliamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
1,2,3,
4
1,2,3~
4
1,2,3,
4
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: --
X
X
X
X
X
X
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1,4,6,X
air quality plan?" 9 ’
b) Violate any air quality standard or conbibute substantially 1,4,6,I X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?9
c)X
4
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
Criteria pollutant for which the_project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality s~tandard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds ~r ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) - Crea~=- " =’ebjecuonable’ - ’ " odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
1,4,6,
g
1,4,6,
Issues and Support~,ng Information Sources Potentla,,xSignificant
Potenti;~IIy Less "Than
S~gnlt~cant Significant
Unles~Impact
Incorporate~l._ _
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)1,4,16 XHave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and VV~ldlife
Service? ....
c)Have a sulsstantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d)
e)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife, species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Ha~oitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1,4,16
.1,4,16
1,4
1,4
X
X
X
X
V. CULTURALRESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse-change in the significance of 1,4,8
a historical resource as defined in 15064.57
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1,4
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c)D~-e-ctiy or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,4
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, incJ~d!ng those interred - 1,4
outside of formal cemeteries?
Issues and Supporting Inforn,,~tion Sources Sources Potentiall~
Signl~cant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
t,l=tig=tion
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant _
Impact In~pa~t
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Earthquake Fault "
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4,7
1,4,7
1,4
1,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or tJ’ie ÷ 1,4,11
environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal 12,13
of hazardous materials?
b)1,4,13Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasona_bly foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous-
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or h.~ndle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste ~thin one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
Xc)
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorpor~t’e<:3
Less Than
Significant -
Impac~
d)
e)
g)
h)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, w~thin two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? - "
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Viii. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)
1,4,13
1,4
1,4
1,4,11
12,13
1,4,12
X
X
X
X
X
b)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies-~Tinterfere.
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existin.g nearby wells would drop to a level which
vjould not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c)
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pa~em of the site
cr area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially=increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on, or off-site?
Create .~r contribute runoff water which would exceed the
cal~a.ci.~ of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systdms or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1,4,17
1,4,7
17
1,4,7
17
1,4,7
1-7
1,4,17
Issues and Supporting Inform=don Sources 8ources Potentiatly
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Incorporated
Less Than
Signlfic.~nt
Imp~
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)
h)
I)
J)
a)
b)
c)
b)
XI,
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
1,4,6,
17
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
X
X
X
Inundatior~ by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?~1,4 X
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:_~
Physically divide an established community?X1
1,2,3
X
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(incl~Jding, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
4
1,2,3
4
X
X
Result in the loss of avail-ability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, ~pecific plan or other land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? =
b)_ Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
-- borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
1,4
1,4,14 X
c)A subs~ntiat permanent increase in ambientnoise levels
in tha 15roject vicinity above levels existing without the
project~
1,4,14
1,4,6
14
8
Issues and Supporting Information Ssurces Potenti=.,
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
M=tigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
d)
e)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,4,6
14
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would !i X
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)1,4 XInduce substantial population growth in an.area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,1,4 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1,4 X-
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XlII.PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)XWould the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,.response.times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
1,4,7
10,11,
12
Schools?
Parks? ~ -
_~Other public facilities?
Issues and SuppoSing Inform,~,ion Sources Poten_tiall~
Significant
Issues
PotentiallVSignificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
,~ignificant
Impact
XlV.RECREATION
1,3,4 Xa)
b)
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
1,3,4
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)1,4,1 0
b)
c)
d)
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due t6 a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
¯incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?___
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
1,4,1 0
1
1,4,10
1,4,10
11,12
1,2,4
¯"1,4,1 0
X
X
X
X
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) -Conflict w~th adopted policies, plans, o~ programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)1,4,6
15
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a~piicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construe.tion oi’ new water er
wastewater treatment facilities o~ e~pansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Xb)1,4,6
15
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage-facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? .
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate cap_acity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient-permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
1,4,6
15
1,4,6
15
1,4,6
15
1,4,6
15
1,4,6
15
X
X
X
X
X
XVll.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)~--~X
b)
Does the-project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildtife 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?
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 past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project ha.ve environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directJy or indirectly?
X
SOURCE REFERENCES:
Palo AJt~ Comprehensive Plan 1998 - 2010, July 20, 1998 (as amended)
__Cit:y-.of Palo Alto Municipal Code~-.Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Planner’s general knowledge of tffe project and area of proposed development
Palo AJto Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, December 1996
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, lVlap Revised September 6, 1989
City.9. f P~I. o-Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
City o~ I=alo Alto Public Works Engineering Department --
Palo AJto "Historical and A~chitectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto", February 1979
Palo f.Jto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality T.e~hnical Background Report, August 1~.~-’
II
10-City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
11-City of Palo Alto Police Department J
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 1994
15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11,1985
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
I.Aesthetics
Construction of the proposed addition will add to an existing structure in a primarily open space area of the
City. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the public, even
though Page Mill Road Is a designated scenic roadway. Also, the proposed addition will be mostly to the rear
of the existing residence and the second story portion will be heavily screened from Page Mill Road bY the
existing redwood trees. The subject site will not be visible from any portion of the trails in the Foothills Park,
Additionally, the Midpeninsula Open-Space District has indicated that the proposed addition would not be
visible from MROSD lands.
The proposed addition to the single-family residence will create additional light and glare, but to an
insignificant effe.~ct_. _ From Page Mill Road, a s~iding glass doorway will lead out to the second story deck~ but
the room will be a bedroom and presumably the interior will be shielded with some type of window covering
that will minimize light spill from the room to the outside at night. Windows have also been provided.on the
other two sides bf the addition, but these elevations face away from Page Mill Road and cannot be seen from
other residences or from the Foothills Park. The proposal, integrates the addition wi~h the existing structure
and natural surroundings by utilizing red cedar shingle siding. The entire house (including the addition) would
then have a new roof of fire retardant: composition shingles. The aesthetic effe~’.ts o; the home will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of Site and Design Review Development.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Ag riculture Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown
on the maps prepared-pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, nor is the site regulated by the Williamson Act contract.
III.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Air Quality "
The short-term alr quality impacts of new construc~tion include construction equipmer~t emissions, vehicle
emissions, emissions from power and gas generation, and dust from excavation, grading, demolition, and
debris transport that may accompany individual projects. Standard conditions of a.cproval will include control
of construction emissions and dust control during co~ction.
Long-term emissions are usually associated with an increase in vehicle trips, use of power and natQra! gas, use
of generators, heaters and ~ther equipment for the operation_and maintenance of hcmes and other facilities.
The proposed addition to an existing single-family home will not create long term emissions, because no new
vehiCle°trips are anticipated. The site will remain as a single-family home and no new units will be added asa
result of the proposed addition,
ML~igation Measures: None required.
IV.
VI.
VII. -
Biological Resources
The City Planning Arborist has reviewed the project and has determined that no significant biological resources
would be impacted by the proposal. The applicant does not propose to remove any trees and the one large
tree at the rear of the site will be protected from construction activities, as required by the Planning Division’s
standards conditions.
Although the project site is identified as being in a riparian habitat in the Comprehensive Plan (map N-l), no
natural watercourse, lake or tidewater exists on the property. The west fork of Adobe Creek does lie to the
south of the property, but it is very far across Page Mill Road Therefore, the proposed addition will not have
an impact on such a habitat.
The project-site is identified as being in, and surrounded by, the biotic community of Oak Woodland with
Chaparral area to the north (Figure 29 of the Comprehensive Plan EIR). The proposed addition to this single-
family home will not disturb the existing plant life, because no trees or vegetation is proposed to be removed.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Cultural Resources
Maps L-B and L-9 of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that the project site is-located within an Archaeological~
Resource Area of Low Sensitivity and not within a Williamson Act property. Also, the "Historical and
Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto" (February 1979) report do~s not identify this home as a
significant resource for the City.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Geology and Soils
The entire state of California is in a seismicallyactive 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 at this site, as identified on maps N-5 and N-10 of the
Comprehensive Plan. 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 _C.o_d~ (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in
the event of an earthquake.
Construction of the project will not increase the amount of landscaping on site, but it will increase the amount
of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography~ Currently, the site has a 3.96%
coverage of impervious-surface on the site (approximately 2,669 square-feet). The first floor of the two-story
addition would add approximately 434 square-feet to the impervious surface coverage, which calculates to a
0.65% increase. Also, site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potenti’at 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 YY_orks prior tO the issuance of any grading and building
permits. Additionally, the City’s Public Works Department has waived the requirement for a preliminary soils
report, due to the relative insignificance of-the proposed additio~n.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is defined as an injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and
chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, nuclear..fuels or low-level radioactive wastes. -Activities that handle
VII.
IX.
hazardous materials are found throughout the City, even in residential areas and homes. The proposed
addition to the single-family home will not involve the use, storage or handling of hazardous materials or waste
other than that already associated with typical households.
~Mitigation Measures: None required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
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 be significant additional runoff from the site, due to the insignificant increase
in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use (as stated in Geologic Issues, above).
The standard conditions of approval will require that a drainage 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 storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
The proposed impervious area and building coverage does exceed the maximum 3.5 percent allowed in this
zone district (PAMC 18.71.080), but the existing residence already exceeds the allowed coverage at 3.96
percent. Occupancy of the proposed residence, including associated driveways and terraces, 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.
The project site is not within a groundwater recharge area, as identified on map N-2 of_the Comprehensive
Plan. The site is also not within an area subject to potential flooding in a lO0-year flood event (map N-6 of
the Comprehensive Plan) or a dam inundation area (map N-8). - ....
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Land Use and Planning
The General Plan designation is Open Space/Controlled Development. This designation allows for some
development on land that has all the characteristics_of_open space. The setting of the home at 3810 Page Mill
Road is rural and there is a characteristic of open space, especially since the site is surrounded on the west by
Foothills Park (which is part of the la_rg~r Foothills Open Space Preserve)- and on the north by the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District. However, the proposed addition is considered an incidental development on the
site, because the site has already been developed with a single-family home. The addition would add
approximately 1,169 square feet to an existing 2,144 square foot home. The house was built in 1967, about
five years before the creation of the OS district and the 200-foot Special Setback. Such restrictions were
placed on-development in this area at the time that the current (original) owners were residing there.
The first policy in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan is to "...retain undeveloped land west of the Foothill
Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development
consistent with the open space character of the area .... " Although the project site is west of the Foothill
Freeway and it is not located within the City’s urban service area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan), it is
not undeveloped land, because it is already developed with a two-story single-family home~ Therefore, the -
addition of a two-story section to the rear of the property is not in conflict with this policy and the project is in
compliance with theg_oals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Zoning designation is Open Space (OS), Special Setback. The OS district allows for single-family
--dwellings as a permitted use. ,The following standards and restrictions to development are set forth in
Chapters 18.71 and 20.08 of the Zoning and Municipal Codes for this district: (1) there is a minimum required
lot area of ten acres, which does not apply in this case, because the lot was legally created in 1967; (2) there
is a maximum impervious area and building coverage of 3.50 percent, which the applicant has made a part of
the variance ~quest to exceed the minimum at 4.61 percent (the existing residence already exceeds the lot
coverage at approximately 3.96 percent); (3) there is a minimum Special Setback district along Page Mill Road
14
Xl.
XIII.
which prohibits development within 200-feet of the right-of-way, which the aplSllcant has made a part of the
v~iance request (the entire property is already within the setback area); and (4) there is a maximum height
limit of 25-feat, which the applicant has made a part of the variance request to exceed the-limit at 28.5 feat
(the existing house already exceeds the height limit at 29 feet). Approval of the Site and Design Review is
required for all uses permitted in the OS district for any development, construction or improvements {Section
1 8.71.040}. If the project is approved by the City, then it will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of
the Zoning and Municipal Codes.
Mit~’gation Measures: None required.
Mineral Resources
The proposed addition to the existing single-family residence will utilize more energy resources than at the
present. This extra utilization is not expected to be more than normally associated with a residential
development and it would not be more than what is utilized by other residents of the City with similarly sized
homes.
Mit~’gation Measures: None required.
Noise
Construction of the proposed addition may increase noise emissions for existing residences on Page Miil Road,
but with no significant impact because the nearest house is hundreds of feet away from this residence. "This
section of Page Mill Road has residences~,that are very isolated from each other.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and the
noise of constructing the addition. Such noise will be short term in duration~nd would be mitigated by
standard City conditions of approval, which limits hours of construction. Once completed, long-term noise
associated with the addition would be within acceptable noise limits~ as associated with a single-family
residential home, and no impacts are anticipated.
IVlit/gation Measures: None required.
Population and Housing : J
The home at 3810 Page Mill Road is currentlyo¢cupied. With the approval of the addition, the home Will
romaine single-fami[ydwelling and no other separate units are proposed as part of this project. Therefore,
there will be no impact on housing within the City, because: there will not be increases to the City or regional
population; the proposed project will not induce substantial growth in the area; and the proje¢t will not
displace bxisting housing.
f, qitigation Mea’sures: No~e required.
Public, Services
The proposed project will not impact municipal services, such as police, fire, schools, solid waste and
~n3aintenance, because the proposal is for an addition to an existing single-family home. No increase in
pollution is expected, because no additionaL_units are planned. Tile project will be conditioned to ensure that
adequate mitigation for pu.blic service impacts is obtained through payment of requir.=d school fees, as are all
development projects in the-City and state. The installation of fire protection and s=.:urity devises may be
required by the Police and FTre Departments and the payment of other fees and tax.=s to the City for
rr,,aintenance of public facilities may be required. Additionally, the entire house {inci~d’.ng the proposed
a~dition) would be provided with a new roof of fire-retardant composition shingles. ;,.-~:h is a safety
4~p.~’~vement over the existing shingles (glass A, as specified by th, e Fire Departme-:.
XlV.
XV,
XV1.
The-project site is in a High Fire Hazard area, as identified on map N-7 of the Co,mprehensive Plan. Although
:the rear of the lot abuts a fire access road, the proposed addition will not encro&’ch 5~to that roadway and Jt
will not block access to the Fire Department. The proposed addition will not increase fire hazards for the area,
and it will comply with all fire codes in effect at the time of construction.
Mib’gation Measures: None required.
Recreation
The implementation of the proposed addition would not increase the demand for park and recreational facilities
in this portion of Palo Alto, because there is not anticipated to be an increase in population. There is an
existing single-family residence at the site and the addition would not add residential units.
Mitigation Measures~ None required.
Transportation and Traffic
The home at 3810 Page Mill Road is currently occupied. With the approval of the addition, the home will
remain a single-family dwelling and no’other separate units are proposed as part of this.project. Therefore, no
additional vehicle trips w.ill be generated from the site.
Page Mill Road is designated as an arterial roadway in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan (map T-8). The
approval of the proposed project will not require any changes to be made to Page Mil!-Road. Additionally, the
City’s Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed addition will not have any t[ansportation
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Utilities and Service Systems
The City’s utility department has reviewed the plans and has indicated that the proposed addition will be
conditioned as any other single-family residence in the City. No significant adverse impact are anticipated with
the proposed addition, because there is an existing single-family residence.on the site which has been utilizing
the utilities of the City since it was built in 1967.
-Mitigation Measures: None required.
]5
ATTACHMENT D
Findings for Approval
Variance
3810 Page Mill Road
99-EIA-1, 99-V-3 and 99-D-1
o
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district.
The Zoning designation is Open Space (OS), Special Setback. The exceptional
circumstance for this property is that although Chapters 18.71 of the Municipal
Code states that for the OS District there is a minimum required lot area often
acres, the subject lotffas legally created and developed prior tO the
implementation of the OS Distric( as a 1.55 acre site. Additiohally, although
Chapte~ 20.08 of the Municipal Codes states that there is a minimum Special
Setback district along Page Mill Road which prohibits development within 200-
feet of the right-of-way, this setback was established after the lot was created and
the house was built. As a result, the home and the entire lot are well within the
200 foot setback. Due to this unusual situation, any addition to-this
nonconforming home would require Variance approval.
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable
property loss or unnecessary hardship. -
The house has not been modified since it was built in 1967. At that time, the
residence had two bedrooms, a playroom, and a living/dining/kitchen area. The
proposed addition would allow for another bedroom, bathroom, family area and
office space. The project would allow for the enjoyment of substantial property
rightg and the reasonable use of the property.
The required standard front setback on this parcel is 30 feet in the OS zone district.
A special 200 foot scenic sethac_k_ 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 applicants’ request for a Variance from the-maximum lot coverage of 3.50
percent would add 0.65 percent (434 square feet) to the existing 3.96 percent
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr[3 810page.st Page 9
coverage of the site. The existing building footprint covers 2.77 percent of the site
and the proposed build#Tg footprint would cover 3.42 per~cent of the site, both
being within the maximum permitted coverage of 3.50 percent. It is the necessary
hardscape of the driveway that places both.the existing development sand the
proposed project outside of the coverage limit. The applicants decided to build up
with t~vo-stories rather than out with a single-story addition in order to preserve
open space on the site. If the addition were to be contained entirely within a
single-story, the lot coverage would calculate to approximately 5.70 percent
coverage. A single story addition would also result in the loss of one or more
mature, healthy-trees and it would be more visually obtrusive from public and
private lands. - _ -
The existing residence is 29 feet in height, which already exceeds the maximum
allowable height for the OS zone of 25 feet. The applic.ants propose a height on
the new addition of 28 ½ feet, which also would exceed the maximum allowable
height. With a two-story addition, rather than a single-story addition, a greater
environmental benefit is achieved..Also,~the fnost level area of the site is where
the proposed addition is located. Locating the addition in other areas of the site or
on a single-level would require.the removal of healthy, mature trees or would
increase the visibility of the additionfrom public right-o_f-_?vays. 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. No removal of trees or _-
vegetation is proposed as part of this project.
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience.
As set forth in the environmental documentation attached to the staff report, no
detriment will result to persons or the environment either on the subject property
or within the vicinity. The proposal provides similar setbacks from Page Mill
Road as other properties in the immediate area. In addition, the existing
vegetation, the use of earth tone building materials and the minimal massing of the
room additions combine to effectively screen the proposal from public-and p}ivate
views, including those from the adjacent Mid Peninsula Open Space District lands
and Foothills Park.
A greater en~v-ironmental benefit is achieved bY adding a second story rather than
building the addition entirely within a single-story. Also, the most level area of the
site is where tl~e proposed addition is located. Locating the addition in other areas
of the site or on a single-level would require the removal of healthy, mature trees
or would increase the visibility of the addition from public right-of-ways.
g:lplaNpladivlpcsr~,3 810page.st Page 10
ATTACHMENT E
Findings for Approval.
Site & Design Review
3810 Page Mill Road
99-EIA:1, 99-V-3 and 99-D-1
o
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.
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.
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 near-by
roads, and the construction of the residential addition will be governed by the
current Zoning Code, the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to
assure safety and a high quality of development. . ..
Sound prin~iples of environmental design and ecological balance will be
observed in construction of the project. _
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_projec-~ is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The first policy in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan is to "...retain undeveloped
land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open
s:lplanlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.sr Page 11
space-~haracter of the area .... " Although the project site is west of the Foothill
Freeway and it is not located within the City’s urban service area (map L-2 oftl~e
Comprehensive Plan), it is not undeveloped land, because it is already developed
with a two-story single-family home. Therefore, the addition of a tWb-story
section to the rear of the property is not in conflict with this policy and the project
is in compliance with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designation is Open Space/Controlled Development.
This designation allows for some development on land that has all the
characteristics of open space. The setting of the home at 3810 Page Mill Road is.
rural and there is a characteristic of open space, especially since the site is
surrounded on the west by Foothills Park and on the north by the Mid Peninsula
Regional Open Space District. However, the proposed addition is considered an
incidental development on the site, because the site has already been developed
with a single-family home. The house was built in I967, about five years before
the creation of the OS district and the 200-foot Special Setback. Such restrictions
were placed on development in this area at the time that the current (original)
owners were residing there.
s:lplanlplad~vlpcsr13810page.sr ---Page 12
ATTACHMENT
Findings for Open Space Criteria
3810 Page Mill Road
99-EIA-1, 99-V-3 and 99-D-1
o
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 wil! be slightly visible from Page Mill Road and will not be
visible from the public trail in the adjoining MSOSD lands. The addition will also
not be visible from Foothills Park. The visibility from Page Mill Road will be
mitigated by the existence of mature trees and vegetation on the site. The visual
impact of the new addition will also be minimized by the use of natural building
materials and earthtone colors. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of
any scenic vistas or views open to the public, even though Page Mill Road is a
designated scenic roadway. Also, the proposed addition will be mostly to the rear
of the existing residence and the second story portion wi_ll be heavily screened
from Page Mill Road by the existing redwood trees. Additionally, the Mid ,
Peninsula Open Space District has indicated that the proposed addition would not
be visible from MROSD lands
Site and structure design should takd ihto consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring pr_o_p~erties.
The proposal is screened from public and private views by mature tr~ees and other
vegetation. Also, surrounding residences are located such that the trees and
-vegetation on their yards blocks views to the project site.
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 roof lines and building elevations to provide visual relief. In
addition, the pfopo.sal utilizes well designed architectural features that fit into the
overall architectural composition and add visual interest and scale to the house.
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr13810page.sr P~el3
o
o
.8.
Built forms and landscape forms should ndmic 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 mass follows 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.
Existing trees with a minimum circumference of 3 7. 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.
No trees are to be removed from the site. All other significant vegetation will
remain, because the.re_ is not such vegeta.tion in the area where the addition will be
located. ~:
Cut is~ encouraged when.it is necessary for geotechnical ~tability and to enable
the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally
discpuraged 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 the location of the addition is
existing level ground. No cut or fill is proposed, except for the standard
foundation work necessary for construction.
To reduce the need for cut and f!ll 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.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. --
The proposal incorporates materials that .include wood shingles and siding of
natural earth tone colors, similar to those found in the natural environment, and
that will match the existing residence. The proposal integrates the addition with
the existing structure and natural surroundings by utilizing red cedar shingle
siding. The er~ire house (including the addition) would then have a new roof of
fire retardant composition shingles. The aesthetic effects of the home will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the Site and
s:lplanlpladiv[pcsr[3 810page.sr Page i 4
I0.
Design Review application, Also, the architectural detailing and stepping of
building mass create shadows appropriate tO the natural hillside setting.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation,
Immediately adjacent to structuresi fireretardant plants should be used as afire
prevention_ technique.
No additional landscaping is proposed or required.
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. The proposed addition to the single-family
residence will create additional light and glare, but to an insignificant effect. From
Page Mill Road, a sliding glass doo ..rway Will l~ad out to the second story deck, but
the room will be a bedroom and presumably the interior will be shielded with some
type of window covering that will minimize light spill from the room to the outside
at night. Windows have also been prdvided on the other two sides of the addition,
but these elevations face away from Page Mill Road and cannot be seen from other
residences or from the Foothills Park. -
11.Access roads should be of a rural rather titan urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foot-hills
environmenO.
The site has direct access from Page Mill Road and no new curbs, gutters or
-sidewalks are proposed. The driveway will remain as part impervious and part
pervious,
s:lplan!pladivlpcsrl3 8 lOpage.sr Page 15
ATTACHMENT G
Conditions bf-Approval.
3810 Page Mill Road
99-EIA-1, 99-V-3 and 99-D-1
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.
All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-reflective material.-
City Planning Arborist
4. A Tree Protection and Preservation Instructions sheet shall accompany the plans
submitted f_or building permit and referenced on all civil drawings (utility, storm,
grading, erosion), demolition, staging, building, landscape, planting and irrigation
plans. Condition #4 shall appear on the this plan.
o The two Oaks and Redwood grove near the proposed addition shall be protected
with chain link fencing (install fence on construction side only). Fence shall be no
closer than 7 feet from the Oak on the north side of the project. Fencing around
the remaining trees may be installed as necessary. A "Waming" 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 with0u~prior authorization from the City of Palo Alto
Planning Arborist. Violators are subject to fine pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the
PAMC." -- --
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.
s:lplanlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.sr Page 16
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 Arb0rist.
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 clearing and greenbelting
plans.
9.The roofing material and construction shall be class A.
Public Works Engineering
10. A formal site draina.ge plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be
presented with the BuildingPermit submission and must be approved by Public
Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainageplan
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. T_he drainage plan
must also show roof water access.
11.Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time be~veen April 15
to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain
fluctuations ....
12.An erosion-control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to
presented with the Building Permit submission.
Utilities Engineering- IVater, Gas & Wastewater
13. All u.tility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utili.ty
Standard Specifications and the utility Department Standard Conditions.
14.The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service
Connection application (load sheet) for the City. if Palo Alto Utilities. The
applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands
(water_in g.p.m.:, gas in BTUPH, and sewer in g.p.d).
The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans
must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr13810page.sr Page 17
development and the public right -of-way, including meters, backflow preventers,
__ fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any oyer required utilities.
16.The applicant must show on the site plan the evidence of any water well, or
axillary water supply.
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.
18.The applicant shall provide to the Engineering department a copy of the plans for
fire system including all Fire department requirements.
19.The contractor wil_!.n_o_t be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement
plan have been approved by the _Water, Gas, and.Wastewater Engineering
Division.
20.Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work
performed by the City of Palo Alto.
Utilities Engineering - Electrical -
21. The applicant shall inform the Utilities Engineering Division if there will be any
change to the existing electrical service, site or location.
22.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.
24.
No permanent structure shall be installed or built within a public utility easement.
Theapplicant shall maintain the necessary clearances, per the National Electrical
Code and the City. - -
DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
City Planning Arborist
25. Any existing frees on adjacent property, including the public right-0fway, that
overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist.
s:lplanlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.sr Page 18
The ~ollowing tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be
retained: :.
a.1’4o 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
27. 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)
s:~,planlpladivlpcsrl3 810page.st -Page 19
Attachment C
ZARIAH BETTEN
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
JOHN-BACA / NTMAIL (verdosa@hotmail.com)
ZARIAH BETTEN / CPA, CH
99-EIA-1 3810 Page Mill
Monday, April 26, 1999 6:09PM
<<File Attachment: DISTRI BU.TXT>> <<File Attachment: 99-EIA-1 .TXT>>
From: "john baca" <verdosa@hotmail.com>
To: planning_commission@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc: city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us, ed_gawf@city.palo-alto.ca.us, george_white@city.palo-alto.ca.us,
ariel_calonne@city.palo-alto.ca.us, zariah_betten@city.palo-alto.ca.us
April 26, 1999
Palo Alto Planning Commission
re: 3810 Page Mill Road application -99-EIA-1, 99-V-3, 99-DD-1
Members of the Planning Commission:
The CEQA Initial Study (Environmental Checklist Form) is flawed. The
appropriate action is to return the application to staff for~rework.
It would not be wise to base decisions on the document, nor would it
be wise to include it in the public record as the final Initial Study.
All Criteria in the checklist are identified as having "No Impact",
none are even classified as having a "Less Than Significant Impact".
This strains credulity given that the project is located in a
sensitive open space environment. I have examined other recent
checklists for projects in the foothills and all found that some
environmental impacts would occur. The explanations provided in the
current assessment also state or imply that impacts will occur. Palo
Alto would be ill-served should ~his document be introduced in any
legal action.. -
You may not be familiar with this part of the CEQA legislation
(revised in 1998):
The original determination made on the basis of the initial study
whether to prepare either a Negative Declaration or an EIR is subject
.to the "fair argument" test (Laurel Heights Improvement Asssc. v. U.C.
Regents (1993) 47 Cal.4th 376).
I present a "fair argument" that open space projects in the foothills
are "Potentially Significant Issues" due to cumulative runoff effects.
The key to this argument is that when it is known that there is an
increased probability of flooding and that the accepted hydrologic
calculations are evidently incorrect, then any extra runoff will make
.floodin.g more severe and it is harder to predict how an increase in
~mperv=ous surface area will increase flooding due to .a particular
development. There is no question that the increase ~n ~mpervious
area caused by development in the foothills was a factor in how bad
the flood in Feb., 1998. It can be demonstrated that this runoff was
a major factor. It is certainly true that creating more impervious
surface will increase the amount of flooding should a flood ever occur
again. In a sense you would allow a resident upstream to cause
problems for a much greater number of peoplewho lived near the ba~/.
The old hydrologic model can’t be used by planners any more because it
doesn’t work. This applies to all the local watersheds of Palo Alto,
even though San Francisquito Creek was where most flooding occurred.
The explanation in the 99-EIA-1 checklist regarding sections VIIIc d,e
c tes sources which include an outdated 1985 SCVWD ordinance, the
author, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Public Works Dept. This area
of Page Mill Road above Foothills Park was affected so much in 1988
Page 1
that a stoplight (not a stopsign) was installed for a few months due
to earth-mo.vement. Would a little more runoff produce more serious
results?
The city explanation do~s not even mention cumulative effects, nor
does any other section include such mention. It must be said that
this is a new checklist from the state, issued in late 1998, and it is
different than the checklist that staff would be familiar with. Thisis one reason to rework the Initial Assessment. The planners need
help to evaluate hydrologic effects in the foothills. Correspondence
with Sara Duckier of the SCVWD indicates that the water district isn’t
in a position to provide information. This cumulative effect is a
good candidate for a Master Environmental Assessment or another of the
types provided. The Master Environmental Assessment is designed tocollect data for a region and has great flexibility (Section 15169 of
the CEQA Guidelines).. It is necessary to perform this hydrologic
evaluation no matter which method is chosen. The new CEQA revisionshave provided better options to conduct and evaluate environmental
assessments. I believe that the city should take advantage of them inthis case, particularly the quantitative methods to take some of the
uncertainty out of decisions. Decisions which could expand the flood
zones in Palo Alto are serious.
I repeat that the 1998 floods showing that the~carrying capacity hasreached limits. This means that any more flooding causes greaterdamage. This applies to development which would never have beenconsidered as being significant in _causing flooding.
I compared the EIA with 94-EIA-31 and with the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration for the Stanford University Foothill ReservoirNo. 2. The first assessment was of the Arrillaga property which is
near the current site. All three reports were different, but the
other two checklists adhered more closely to CEQA guidelines for an
Initial Study than does the report on 3810 Page Mill Road. Both of
the other assessments identified 30%-40% of the issues as having other
than "No Impact" despi~te the decision by one to complete an EIR and
the other concluding that a Negative Declaration was appropriate. The
checklist format requires that sources forming the basis for decisions -
be included. (This comes from Section 15064 and nearby sections in
the CEQA Guidelines.) The sources listed in the checklist do notinclude any site studies or individual inspections. This is in sharp
contrast to the comparison reports. The descriptions provided by the
Stanford and Ardllaga report have some detail and include maps of the
area to be developed as is suggested in CEQA. 99-EIA-1 lacks such
information. The explanations that are included also differ markedly
from the other two assessments. -
The explanations contained in the Environmental Checklist Form are not
acceptable:
The current impervioussurface coverage is stated as both 3.7% and
3.96% on page 14. On the same page, it is stated that the project
.would .add 1169 sq. ft., while on page 13 the study states that~mperv~ous surface area will increase by 434 sq. ft. This may be
physically possible since the addition would be "mostly to the rear of
the existing residence" (p. 12). In truth, presenting these .
contradictions implies that none of the explanations can be trusted
because this is extremely negligent work.
There is an explanation justifying the variance because the impervious
_surface, the setback, and the height are already non-conforming. This
occurs on pp. 1, 13, and 14. In addition, the explanations use the
argument that because the building is a single-family residence, there
will be no changes because._an~ extra non-conforming addition will leave
Page 2
the property as a single-family residence.
The Comprehensive Plan is said to consider the property as being in a
riparian habitat according to the explanation on page 13. However,
the explanation continues by implying without stating directly that
the Plan is incorrect. On other pages the Comprehensive Plan is
considered a definitive reference. The other two assessments that I
examined relied on more specific data than general planning
instruments.
The analysis comes into further question when mitigation is referred
to only in sweeping terms like "standard conditions of approval
ensure...". Using phrases such as "relatively insignificant" (page 13)
throughout the explanations is best if some quantitative basis is
given at least once. Palo Alto long-term residents would have just a
little problem reading on page 14 that Foothills Park was a part of
the Foothills Open Space Preserve.
The other studies concluded that there might be geologic impacts that
were significant due to fault activity, but this study reaches a
different conclusion. Therefore, the PAMC Section 18.71.140a
mandatory Geological Soils Investigation and Report was waived (p.
13).
The Environmental Checklist Form explains that approval will not
entail conflict with city codes, but neglects to mention PAMC Section
18.71.1401:
Substandard Lots. Any parcel of land not meeting the area or dimension
requirements of this chapter is a lawful building site if such
parcel-was a lawful buildingsite on July 5, 1972. All other requirements of this chapter shall
apply to any-such
parcel.
Why was this document that forms the basis for deciding this
application issued? It may be that one of the new CEQA changes is
thought to be a problem. By labeling every criteria as having "No
Impact", no monitoring and reporting program isrequired. It may be
that this project is precisely the embodiment of the definition of
"incidental development" (p. 14). I do know that as a native Palo
Alto resident, I am not at all proud that the planning department
woold work in this manner. Approving this application with this CEQA
document would not just set a precedent for (from the November 16, "
1998 city council meeting minutes about 4020 Page Mill Road):
>"Mr. Beecham said one item of concern was that the variance might set
>a precedence for others to build larger houses on lots in the Open
>Space District. However, further study showed that along Page Mill
>Road in the Open Space District, there seemed to be no other-small
>lots so the issue seemed to be resolved."
Allowing this Environmental Checklist Form will set a precedent as to
how the planning staff should perform their jobs.
Sincerely,
John Baca
P.O. Box 8527 Stanford, CA 94309-8527
verdosa@hotmail.com
415/4730996
cc: City Council, Ed Gawf, George VVhite, Ariel Calonne, Zariah Betten
Page 3