HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-19 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s.Report
2
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 19, 2004 CMR: 234:04
4010 PAGE MILL ROAD [03-D-10, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15]:. RECORD
OF LAND USE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN
APPLICATION BY CARTMELL/TAM ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF
OF DAVID DITZEL FOR A SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO
ALLOW A 1,677 SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
3,433 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW SWIMMING POOL, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA.
ALLOWED, AND A VARIANCE FOR EXTENSIONS INTO THE
SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS. ZONE DISTRICT:
OPEN SPACE (OS). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW AND COMMENT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Record of Land Use Action denying
the application for Site and Design review and variances for the construction of a
residential addition in the Open Space district (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2004, the City Council reviewed a recommendation by staff and the
Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) to approve an application for
Site and Design review and variances for the construction of a residential addition in the
Open Space district. Councilmember Mosser moved to approve the staff and Commission
recommendation, which was seconded by Councilmember Morton. The motion failed (5-
2-0-1, Councilmember Ojakian absent) and the Council directed staff to submit a revised
Record of Land Use Action that would reflect a decision to deny the project.
A copy of the February 17, 2004 City Manager Report (156:04) is contained in
Attachment B and the meeting sense minutes are contained in Attachment C.
CMR: 234:04 Page 1 of 2
DISCUSSION
The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) describes the conclusions made by the
City Council and includes the recommended findings for denial based upon the Council’s
analysis of the project. The Council’s review included the following summary point, s:
Development within the Open Space district requires special consideration beyond
what is typically required in other districts.. The protection of open space as a
public asset is a priority; the City should be concerned about maintaining the
qualities of open space areas.
The project has the potential to be visually intrusive to the users of Page Mill
Road. The non-complying structure (greenhouse) is located close to Page Mill
Road and is a visual intrusion into the scenic corridor.
Variances should used to grant relief from the zoning code for specific needs of
the property owner that affect the livability of the structure. The additional
requested floor area would essentially be for an expanded garage space, which was
not considered to be essential living space. The small additions to the rear of the
house would be acceptable additions.
Although the Council recognized the property rights of the applicant and the support of
the immediate neighbors, the Council’s concerns focused on the protection of the Open
Space district as a public asset, that the variance process should be used ol~ly to grant
relief from the zoning ordinance for the construction of small amounts of livable area,
and that the small size of lots should not receive special consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:. Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B:City Manager’s Report (CMR 156:04), February 17, 2004
Attachment C:Excerpt of the City Council Minutes of February 17, 2004
PREPARED BY:~j~.[~
STEVEN TURNER
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 234:04 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE
ACTION FOR 4010 PAGE MILL ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW
03-D-10 AND VARIANCE 03-V-15 (CATHY CARTMELL,
APPLICANT)
On April 19, 2004, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
denied the Site and Design Review and Variance application for an
addition to an existing single-family structure in the Open Space
Zone District, making the following findings, determination and
.declarations:
SECTION i. Background.
A. Cathy Cartmell of Cartmell/Tam Architects, on behalf
of David Ditzel, property owner, has requested the City’s approval
to allow construction of a 1,677 square-foot addition to an
existing single family residence and construction of a new swimming
pool and accessory facilities and landscaping, including a request
for the following variances: construction of a single story
addition having a 29’ 6" side yard setback, constriction of an
exterior stairway and landing having a 46’ front yard setback and
construction of a new garage having a 69’ front yard setback, and
total impervious area of 13.5% ("The Project").
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 351-05-025)
of approximately one acre in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site
contains a single-family residence. The site is designated on the
ComprehensivePlan land use map as Open Space and is located within
Open Space (OS) zoning district.
The site would be used as a single-family residence total~ng
approximately 5,100 square feet.
Accessory to this use would be an in-ground swimming pool,
approximately 16’ x 32’ in size, located at the rear of the single-
family home.
C. The Planning and Transportation ’Commission
(Commission) reviewed the Project on November 12, 2003 and January
14, 2004. The Commission recommended approval on January 14, 2004.
The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR 156:04 and
the attachments to it.
D. The City Council reviewed the Project on February i0,
2004 and voted not to approve the Site and Design and Variance
applications.
SECTION 2.Site and Design Review
A.The placement and lack of screening of the
structures on the property are visually intrusive to the scenic
corridor along Page Hill Road. Therefore, the project is
inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including the
followingprovisions:
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto’s roads and
trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians; and;
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning
Area should be consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space
Development Criteria, including:
"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.
B.Site and Design Approval
prejudice.
is denied without
SECTION 3.Variance
A.The granting of the variance, is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property, right of
the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardship. Only a small portion of the additional floor
area requested would be to expand the livable areas of the house.
The bulk of the additional floor area would be to expand an
existing two-car.garage that is currently of a size that meets the
requirements for covered parking on the site.
B. The granting of the application would be injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and would be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience. The placement and lack of screening of the structures
on the property are visually intrusive to the scenic corridor and
Page Mill Road.
C. Variance Approval is denied without prejudice under
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18. 92.070.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
3
Attachment B
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 17, 2004 CMR:156:04
4010 PAGE MILL ROAD [03-D-10, 03-EIA-15,~ 03-V-15]:
APPLICATION BY CARTMELL/TAM ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF
DAVID DITZEL FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 1,677
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 3,433 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 4010 PAGE MILL ROAD AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SWIMMING POOLI INCLUDING A
REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 29’6" SIDE YARD
SETBACK WHERE A 30’ SETBACK IS REQUIRED, CONSTRUCTION
OF AN EXTERIOR STAIRWAY AND LANDING HAVING A 46’ FRONT
YARD SETBACK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE
HAVING A 69’ FRONT YARD .SETBACK WHERE A 200’ SETBACK IS
REQUIRED, AND A TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA OF 13.5%, WHERE
3.5% IS NORMALLY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED. ZONE DISTRICT:
OPEN SPACE (OS). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the following:
1. Negative Declaration, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2.Variance to allow 13.5% lot coverage and setback encroachments as described in the
Draft Record of Land Use Action.
3.Site and Desig~ Review application to allow construction of a residential addition in
the Open Space district.
BACKGROUND
The project site is a single parcel of approximately one acre in the Palo Alto Foothills that
is located entirely within the 200’ special scenic setback along Page Mill Road.
~MR:156:04 Page 1 of 4
The site contains a single-family residence of 3,433 square feet on two levels and
accessory structures, including a cloth greenhouse, storage shed, and a hot tub. Any
development on the site would be within the special scenic setback. In addition, the site is
noncomplying for lot size (one acre) and lot coverage (13.6%). The minimum lot size in
the OS district is 10 acres. The maximum lot coverage is 3.5%.
The applicant has proposed an approximately 1,700 square feet expansion of the
residence. This expansion requires a variance for side yard and scenic setback
encroachments and lot coverage. Since the site is located in the Open Space district, Site
and Design Review is also required to determine compliance with the Open Space
Development Criteria.
The addition includes a 237 square foot expansion of the master bedroom and bath, a
1,440 square foot addition at the lower level for a new attached garage and storage area,
an uncovered deck above the proposed garage, a new exterior stairway and landing for
the main entrance and a 16’ x 32’ swimming pool and deck at the rear of the house.
The existing driveway would be slightly modified to accommodate the new garage. A
backup area will be created so that automobiles would not have to back out on to Page
Mill Road. A new concrete pad adjacent to the backup area would accommodate a
proposed propane tank, which would provide a fuel source of the residence for heating
and cooking.
Exterior materials for the addition include a stucco finish to match the existing finish and
horizonthl redwood siding around the garage deck and garage elevations.
A full project description is included in the attached Planning and Transportation
Commission Staff Report.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) on
November 12, 2003 and January 14, 2004. The Commission recommended that the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration, the Variance and the Site and Design Review
application (4-2-0-0, Commissioners Butt and Holman opposed).
In addition to the variance and Site and Design findings, the Commissioners discussed
the use of pervious and impervious surfaces on the site and the aesthetics and visibility of
the existing cloth greenhouse.
The project applicant originally proposed an impervious surface coverage of 20.7 % of the
site area. In that plan, the asphalt driveway was counted as an impervious surface. The
Commission directed the applicant .to revise the plan so that the impervious surfaces
proposed for the site did not exceed the existing coverage.
CMR: 156:04 Page 2 of 4
The applicant revised the plans by converting the driveway material to a Basalite
pervious concrete system. This material would allow rainwater to be absorbed and would
reduce water runoff during rainstorms. In addition, the cloth greenhouse was found to be
a t.emporary structure and therefore does not count as an impervious surface. These and
other minor revisions reduced the proposed overall impervious coverage to an amount
less than the existing impervious coverage.
The. existing cloth greenhouse is a 688 square foot temporary structure that can be
disassembled and stored when not in use. The structure, in its existing location on the
site, is visible from Page Mili Road. As a proposed condition of approval, staff
recommended that the greenhouse be removed from the site six months of the year (SO
that the structure could be considered temporary) and that the greenhouse.covering
material be changed to a color that is more compatible with the environment.
Commissioners discussed.the visibility of the greenhouse from .Page Mill Road and
supported staff’s recommendation. The Commission recommended as a condition of
approval that the period when the greenhouse could be in place would be restricted to the
"growing season" of the specific variety of fruits or vegetables to be cultivated.
With the above modifications, the Commission recommended approval of the Site and
Design and variance application, finding that the project is compatible with other single-
family uses in the area, maintains the investment of the property owner, does not detract
from the natural environment, includes materials that increase permeability on the site
and is in conformance with the ComprehensiVe Plan. The Commission recognized the
hardships of a substandard lot size and location of the lot within the 200’ scenic setback
as justification for approval of the requested variances.
Commissioner Burt opposed the motion to approve the’ project based upon his
determination that substantial evidence was not presented to indicate that the variance
would not be harmful or detrimental to neighboring property owners or users of Page
Mill Road, in that there is not adequate protection of the scenic right-of-way along Page
Mill Road. In addition, Commissioner Burr could not find that the project was consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan or constructed with sound environmental design principals,
in that the exterior materials proposed for the building are not compatible with the natural
environment.
Commissioner Holman opposed the motion to approve the project based upon her
determination that substantial evidence was not presented to indicate that the variance
was necessary to preserve a substantial property right, in that the existing lot size allows
for a reasonably sized house without the need for a variance and that. property owners are
not are not entitled by right to have large homes within the Open Space district.
CMR:156:04 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B"
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Record of Land Use Action
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report January 14,
2004
Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes,.
January 14, 2004
Project Plans (Council packet only)
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
PlannerS TEVEN TURNER
STEVE EMSI IE
~Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY"~RRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 156:04 Page 4 of 4
ACTION NO. 2004-03
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND
USE ACTION FOR 4010 PAGE MILL ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW 03-D-10, VARIANCE 03-V-15 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-15 (CATHY ~CARTMELL, APPLICANT)
On, February 17, 2004 the Council of the City of Palo Alto
adopted the Negative Declaration, the Site and Design Review and
Variance application for an addition to an existing single-family
structure in the Open Space Zone District, making the following
findings, determination and deClarations:
SECTION i. Backqround. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines., and declares as
follows:
A. Cathy Cartmell of Cartmell/Tam Architects, on behalf
of David Ditzel, property owner, has requested the City’s approval
to allow construction of a 1,677 square-foot addition to an
existing single family residence and construction of a new swimming
pool and accessory facilities and landscaping, including a request
for the following variances: construction of a single story
.addition having a 29’ 6" side yard setback, constriction of an
exterior stairway and landing having a 46’ front yard setback and
construction of a new garage having a 69’ front yard setback, and
total impervious area of 13.5% ("The Project").
B~ The project site is a single parcel~ (APN 351-05-025) of
approximately one acre in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site
contains a single-family residence. The site is designated on the
Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space and is located within
Open space (os) zoning district.-
The site will be used as a single-family residence totaling
approximately 5,100 square feet.
Accessory to this use would be an in-ground swimming pool,
approximately 16’ x 32’ in size, located at the rear of the single-
family home.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission(Commission)
reviewed the Projec~ on November 12, 2003 and January 14, 2004. The
Commission recommended approval on January 14, 2004. The
Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR:and the
attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070,
Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
it was determined that, with the implementation of mitigation
measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
development, therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration
was made available for public ~eview beginning October 29, 2003
through November 17, 2003. The Environmental Impact Assessment and
Negative Declaration are contained in CMR:
SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings
i. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining ornearby sites.
The project does not detract from the natural
character of the site. The primary use of the site would remain as
a single-family residence requiring ~only minimal disturbance to
land. The project introduces minimal development including two
"small additions, a swimming pool and a modified driveway that would
be in scale with similar development in the area.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability ~ of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The project would maintain.desirability of investment
in the same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design, size
and use of the site is consistent with the existing residences on
Page Mill Road and does not increase the intensity of .use. The
construction of all improvements would be governed by the
regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building
Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high
quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental
-ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The use of permeable materials will help reduce
rainwater flows across the land. The proposed design of the
driveway, walkways and accessory uses and orchard will follow
existing site topography.
2
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo A1 to
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the
Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Policy L-l: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the
preservation of undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway
and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very
low-intensity development consistent with the open space character
of the area. The project site is located southwest of the Foothill
Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, within the Open Space
district. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-
family uses are permitted within this district. The project scope
is of low intensity, in that the building additions are small,
totaling 1,677 square feet~ The swimming pool would be located at
or near grade at the rear of the house. The entry stairway and
landing, located at the front of the house, is of a style than
compliments the architectural of the structures. All of the
development would be screened by the existing mature vegetation or
would be located in areas that are not normally visible from off-
site areas.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain
the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses ~that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The
project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the
area and does not detract from the natural character ofthe site.
The proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to
neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of
Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is known to-contain widely ~ispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human
burials and a variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all
grading and constructiqn activities is required, if any
archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time,
retention of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the
field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s
office, and if native American remains are discovered, evaluation
of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required.
The Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, would provide
implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo
Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians. The additions would not seriously impede views of the
foothills to users of Page Mill Road due to their small scale and
profile.
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of
the Planning Area should be consistent with the City of Palo Alto
Open Space development Criteria. Conformance with the Open Space
Development Criteria is discussed below.
The project proposal meets the following Open Space
Development Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding development in designated open space areas.
i.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 project scope is of low intensity, in that in that the building
additions are small~ totaling 1,677 square feet. The swimming pool
would be located at or near grade at the rear of the house. The
entry stairway and landing, located at the front of the house, is
of a style than compliments the architectural of the structures.
Although the ’prQjec~ is .located within the 200’ scenic roadway
setback a!ong Page Mill Road. the project would have a low profile
and would be screened by the existing mature vegetation.
2.Site and structure design should take into
consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring
properties. The site contains ample mature vegetation that assists
in screening the projecz from adjacenz properties. The building
additions are small and have a low profile that is compatible with
the existing structure and the topography of the site. Existing
fencing minimizes views of the addition on the adjacent property
owners to the south.
3.Built forms and landscape forms should mimic
the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of
the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance. The siting takes advantage of the existing topography
and vegetation to shield the project from off site views. Mature
vegetation would non be disturbed, thereby retaining the existing
natural view of the project site.
4.Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for
geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into
the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should
never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees.
Locate development to minimize the need for grading. Excavation
would be required to install the swimming pool. Minimal grading
4
would occur at the driveway and turn-around area. Grading and/or
fill would potentially be used at the area near swimming pool to
create a level surface, but would not be used in areas adjacent to
trees and other foliage~
5.Buildings should use natural materials and
earthtone or subdued Colors. New building materials, including
wood siding, railings, exterior stairway, and new colors are
proposed to blend in with the natural environment. Retaining walls
constructed for the turn-around ar~a would be made of natural
materials.
SECTION 4.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-D-10, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Variance Findings
i.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district, in that the site is
nonconforming for lot area and is located entirely within the 200’
scenic setback area along Page Mill Road. Any addition to the
existing building would be located within this setback area. In
addition, the existing house extends into the 30’ required side
yard setback.
Development within the Open Space district is limited by the
maximum impervious area of 3.5 percent. The existing lot area of
one acre would allow only 1,524 square feet of impervious area,
which would include the building footprint and areas such as
driveways and walkways.
2.The granting to 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, in that theentire lot is located within the 200’ scenic
setback, no development would be able to occur on any portion of
the property. The existing structure extends approximately six
inches into the side yard setback. Any addition at the rear of the
structure would extend into the side yards setback in order to line
up with the existing wall in the setback.
Compliance with the 3.5 percent impervious surface and building
coverage would not allow adequate area for impervious surfaces or
building on this site.
3.The granting of the application will not be
5
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare,
or convenience, in that the proposed additions were sited to keep
the building footprint compact and utilize ageas that have already
been developed. The new garage would be sited on part of the
existing driveway. Siting the project in an area of the lot already
developed respects the native vegetation. The project would respect
existing site topography and vegetation to shield the project from
off site views..As the project.involves single story additions the
project maintains a low profile to minimize off site visual impact
on the neighbors and the opens space areas.
SECTION 6.VARIANCE APPROVALS GRANTED.Variance
ApproVal. is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-V-15, subject to the
conditions of approval fin Section 8 of the Record.
SECTION 7.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Cathy Cartmell
of Cartmell/Tam Architects titled "Ditzel Residence", dated
December I, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
of-approval in Section 8. A copy of the plans is on file in the
Department Of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of
approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 8.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
.I.The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be
in substantial conformance with plans received on December i, 2003,
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of
approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
2.The storage shed that is currently on the site to
the north of the driveway shall be removed prior to finalization of
the building’permit.
3. The temporary greenhouse shall be considered a
temporary structur$ for the private accessory use of a garden on
the subject property. The greenhouse shall be constructed without a
foundation and composed of rigid frame that can be easily
disassembled. The structure may be covered by cloth, plastic fabric
or similar materials having a color that blends in with the
surrounding natural environment. The greenhouse shall be
disassembled and stored during those months that are not in the
growing season.
4.The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
structures, and other features. The stair color of the fence
surrounding the propane tank shall be. reviewed by staff prior to
issuance of the building permit.
5.Driveway Retaining Wall- Fill shall only be used to
the minimum amount necessary to meet code requirements. The
approximate amount of fill shall be printed on the building permit
plan sets. The concrete wall shall incorporate an earthtone color
(integral color or paint) to blend in with the natural environment.
6.A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval by staff prior to building permit
issuance. The lighting plan shall show all fixtures to be used on
the site. Provide fixture type and product cut sheets, quantities
to be used, and voltage ratings. Any security, lighting on the
accessory building shall be installed at or below the plate line.
Security lighting fixtures shall include motion-based activation
sensors and the bulbs and/or filaments shall be shielded so that
they cannot be seen from off site views.
7. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-
reflective material.
8.If during grading and construction activities, any
archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any
Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately until a Native American
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
Planning Division Arborist
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF DEMOLITION,GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT
9. Tree protection shall be implemented for the
following trees to be preserved which are at risk from project
7
impacts. The plans shall show a tree protection zone (TPZ) as a
bold dashed line, consisting of Type I protective fencing at a
radius location i0 times the diameter of each tree trunk- (the 14"
redwood may have a ten foot TPZ on the south side only). If any
development (grading, improvement or changes) occurs within the
TPZ, an arborist assessment and mitigation plan shall be submitted
to the City Planning Arbor~st for approval. Activities around the
trees shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual,
Section 2.00.
i0. The following five (5) trees .shall be protected.
14"Redwood, 6" Eucalyptus, 6" Olive~ i0" Olive and a 32" P~ne,
and are considered the subject of this discretionary approval.
ii. A Tree Protection Instructions Sheet, Labeled T-I,
shall be included in the plans submitted for building permit. The
sheet shall include the following information:
Standard Protection Measures (attached to Tree
Disclosure Statement)
Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.20-2.2.5
(hardcopy or downloaded from website).
12. All pertinent plan sheets shall include a note
applying to the protected trees stating: "Protected Tree--no
contacting the project arborist is required as indicated on sheet
T-I". Civil drawings shall specifically call out ’no grading
permitted within a tree protection zone unless specifically
approved by the City arborist.’
13. All underground utilities shall be located outside
the TPZ, as far from tree roots as possible unless directionally
bored.
14. All Planning Department conditions of approval for
the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building
permit.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT
15. Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from
the contractor verifying that the required protective/fencing is in
place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior
to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing
shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final
inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after
demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as
required by the project arborist.
8
DURING CONSTRUCTION
16. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or
replacement of any protected trees that are damaged during the
course of construction. Replacement standards pursuant to the City
Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.20,:shall apply.
17. The following general tree preservation measures
apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil,
vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure
area. The ground.under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
18. Watering Schedule. If irrigation is disconnected for
longer than 20 days, all trees to be retained shall receive monthly
watering during all phases of construction per the City Tree
Technical Ma@ual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application
of water shall be kept by .the cont~ractor at the site. The City
Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final
inspection is requested..
PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY INSPECTION
17. The project sponsor shall schedule an inspection by
Code Enforcement Officer or Planning Arborist to verify that the
health and condition of the trees has been maintained and to
determine if tree damage requires mitigation.
Fire Department
18. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout
the building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13-
1999 Edition. Fire sprinkler system installations require separate
submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083). Note:
building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler
coverage is indicated.
19. Tr~e limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear
of the structure in accordance with Appendix II-A of the 1998
California Fire Code. Note: No tree shall be planted closer than I0
feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
Public Works Department
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
20. Grading & Drainage Plan - The applicant shall submit
a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering.
This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and
demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest
adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage
patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent
properties, shall be maintained.
21. Grading Permit -Permittee must obtain a grading
~permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if
excavation volume (outside the building footprint) exceeds i00
cubic yards.
22. Impervious Area -The proposed development will
result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted
impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm
Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility
~bill will take place in the month following the final approval of
the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The
impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available
from Public Works Engineering
DURING CONSTRUCTION
23. Best Management Practices - 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 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared
for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction
debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or
other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter
16.09).
24. Dust Control & Cleanup -To reduce du-st levels, it
shall be required that exposed earth surfaces~ be watered as
necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or
across any public or private property shall be removed immediately
and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-
way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense.
25. City Standards -All construction within the City
right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction
shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Departments.
PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
26. Final Approval - The Public Works Inspector shall sign
off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit.
All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-
i0
developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off.
SECTION 9.Term of Approval.
Site and Design .Approval.In the event actual
construction of the project ms not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.82.080.
Variance Approval. In the event actual construction of
the project is not commenced within one of the date of council
approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or
effect, pursuant.to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.080.
~ASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Directbr of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
ii
TO:
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2
FROM:
DATE:
Steverf Turner
Planner
January 14, 2004
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
SUBJECT:4010 Page Mill Road [03-D-10, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15]: Application
by Cartmell/Tam Architects on behalf of David Ditzel for a Site and
Design .Review to allow a 1,677 square-foot addition to an existing
3,433 single-family residence and construction of a new swimming
pool, including a request for the following variances: a 29’ 6" side
yard setback where a 30’ setback is required, construction of an
exterior stairway and landing having a 46’ front yard setback and
construction of a new garage having a 69’ front yard setback where a
200’ setback is required, and a total impervious surface area of
13.5%, where 3.5% is normally the maximum allowed. Zone
District: Open Space (OS). Environmental Assessment: a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for public review and comment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning & Transportation Commission recommend approval of
the Negative Declaration (Attachment A), the application for Site & Design review, and
the Variances to the City Council, based upon the findings and subject to the Conditions
of Approval (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed this project on November 12,
2003 and continued it to a date uncertain. The Commission made the following
comments in their discussion of the project:
The amount of impervious surface should be reduced. The applicant should
examine alternatives that do not increase the amount of impervious area that
currently exists on the site.
4010 Page Mill Road Page 1
The status of the storage shed should be determined.
The greenhouse should be addressed, as it is visible from the scenic corridor.
The location of the propane tank should be examined and installation of
landscaping should be considered that would act to screen the tank.
The Fire Department should determine the minimum width of the driveway that is
necessary.
A complete description of the site, the proposed project, and the request for variances are
contained in the staff report in Attachment C. The Commission verbatim minutes from
this review are contained in Attachment D.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has revised the project plans to address the Commission questions and
concerns.
Impervious Area
The existing impervious surface are on the site is 5,938 square feet. The applicant has
reduced the impervious area to 5,857 square feet, or 13.5% of the site area. This project
reduces the impervious area on the site by 81 Square feet.
The reduction of impervious area was accomplished by the following:
The driveway paving materials have been changed from asphalt to a permeable
pavers and a Basalite permeable pavement system. This change reduced the
impervious surfaces by 2,234 square feet.
The property owner has indicated that the storage shed will be removed prior to
the building permit finalization. This is a condition that has been added to the
Record of Land Use Action, Attachment B, Section 8.
The Building Division has indicated that the cloth greenhouse is considered a
temporary structure, and should not have been counted as impervious surface. This
structure has been removed from the plans.
Cloth Greenhouse and Storage Shed
The applicant has indicated that the greenhouse is a structure that is installed for six
months of the year. The Building Division has indicated that this would be a considered a
temporary structure that would not require permits 0r be assessed as livable area.
Therefore, the greenhouse has been removed from the project plans and will not be
3875 Page Mill Road Page 2
considered as an impermeable surface or floor area.
Staff has recommended that the greenhouse, when installed during the summer months,
should be of a material that is compatible with the scenic area of the open space, and shall
be maintained in good condition. These are conditions that have been added to the
Record of Land Use Action, Attachment B, Section 8.
As previously mentioned, removal of the storage shed is required as a condition of
approval, Removal of the shed shall be completed prior to finalization of the building
permit.
Propane Tank "
The location of the propane tank has not been revised since the last submittal. It will be
placed on a concrete pad adjacent to the "hammerhead" portion of the driveway. This
will allow, for propane delivery trucks to.easily access the tank. The applicant has placed
three, 15-gallon pine trees that would be oriented to the driveway. In addition, a 4’ high
wood fence would be constructed onthe north side of the tank that would reduce views as
seen from Page Mill Road.
Staff recommends that the propane tank be painted a color that blends in with the scenic
environment of the site. The stain color of the fence shall also be reviewed by staff prior
to issuance of the building permit. This is a condition that has been added to the Record
of Land Use Action, Attachment B, Section 8.
Driveway Width
The applicant has met with the Fire Department concerning the driveway width. It was
determined that a width of 16’ is the minimum width required for the driveway. A letter
from Gordon Simpkinson, Fire Protection Plan Checker, is contained in Attachment E.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for this project proposal was provided
by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition,
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the. project site were mailed a hearing
notice card.
TIMELINE
Action:
Applications Received:
Applications Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review:
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting:
City Council Action Deadline
Date:
July 28, 2003
October 12, 2003
October 29 to November 17, 2003
November 12, 2003
April 9, 2004
3875 Page Mill Road Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared and has been available for a 20-day public
review period beginning on October 29, 2003 and ending on November 17, 2003. A copy
of the document is provided in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A:
Attachment B.
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E.
Attachment F:
Draft Negative Declaration
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, November
12, 2003
Planning and TransportatiOn Commission Minutes, November 12,
2003
Project Description Letter and Supporting Documentation
Project Plan Set (Commissioners Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Cathy Cartmell, Applicant, 4001 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
David Ditzel, Owner, 4010 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022
Timothy Drabik, 3995 page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022
Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Scott Selover, 4020 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022
Prepared by: Steven Turner/Y[
Planner
Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chigf Planning Official
3875 Page Mill Road Page 4
Attachment A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CiO’ of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and CommuniO, Environment
Project Title:4010 Page Mill Road- Addition to Single Family
Home
4.
5.
6.
o
9.
10.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
¯ Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
¯ Project Sponsor:
Property Owner:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of the Project:
Proiect Summary_
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Steven Turner, Planner (650) 329-2155
4010 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto
03-D-10, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15
Cathy Cartmell
4001 Page Mill Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
David Ditzel
4010 Page Mill Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Open Space
OS- Open Space
The project is a 1,677 square foot addition and remodel to an existing 3,433 square foot single-
family residence. The proposed addition includes adding a 40’ x 36’ garage and storage area
adjacent to the north side of the existing house with a roof deck and revising the driveway to
accommodate the new garage. The project would also include moving the north living room
wall into alignment with the existing garage wall. In addition, the project includes a four-foot
wide addition to the rear of the house that would bring the bedroom area in line with the living
room. Finally, the project includes the addition of a swimming pool and covered patio at the rear
and entry stairs at the front of the building.
Site Su_m__m__a_w- Existin~ Conditions
The project site is located on a parcel (APN 351-05-025) of approximately one acre in an Open
Space district adjacent to Page Mill Road. The site contains a single-family residence of 4,121
1
.square feet on two levels. Accessory buildings include a hot tub, a greenhouse made of cloth
material, and a storage building. Access to the site is on Page Mill Road. The entire property is
located within a 200’ scenic setback, as measured from Page Mill Road.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:None
13. Date Prepared:October 29, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages:
X Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
X Biological Resources
X Cultural Resources
X Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X
X
X
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
X
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation,
I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd t.hat 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
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fred 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) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation, measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed..
I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all.
potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~plir~e’c~r,
arming and Community Environment
Date
Date
X
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply tO projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)
3)
4)
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 must 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 effect may be significant. If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an ElK is required.
"Negative Declaration: Les~ Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
3
5)
must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are aVailable for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or re.freed from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources’for potential impacts (e.g.
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
inctude a reference to the page. or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are flee to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever
format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria 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
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than I¯No
Significant Impact
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1,3,4 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1,3,4 X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,3,4 X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light orglare, which 1,3,4 X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
IL 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 California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a)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?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c)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
X
III.AIR QUALITY. Where availablel the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or atr
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 6 X
air quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 6 X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c)6 XResult 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 standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3,6 X
concentrations?
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3,6 X
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)1
b)
e)
d)
e)
Have substantial adverse effects, 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 offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantia’l 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?
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 Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
1,2
.1
x
x
x
X
X
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)1,5 X
b)
c)
d)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb an), human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
1 X
X
X
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significani Unless Significant Impact
lssues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 1,8 X
most recent Alquist-Priolo 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?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c)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?
d)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 wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1,8
1,8
1
1,11
1,11
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a)
b)
c)
d)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
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
1,14
1,14
1,14
X
X
X
X
7
e)
g)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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~ within 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 wiidlands?
1,3
1,3
1,14
1,14
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 12 X
requirements?
b)12
c)
d)
e)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
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-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or 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
6r 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 or contribute runoff water which wduld exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
12
12
12
12
X
X
X
X
X
8
.g)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 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?
j) inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1,3,4,7
1,7,11
1,11
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
Physically divide an established community?
Couflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, 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?
X
X
X
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
Result in the loss of availability 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, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
X
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
b)
c)
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?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
hhe project viciaity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4 X
X
X
X
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant Unless
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e)1,2,3,4 XFor 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?
For a project within, the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,2,3,4 X
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
Induce 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)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1,3 X
X
X
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)Would the pgoject result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associa[ed 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?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
X
XIV. RECREATION
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
1 X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
b) Does theproject include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)
b)
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 in~rease in either the number of
vehicletrips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
c)
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?
Substantiallyincrease hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
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
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
d)
1,13
1,13
13
4,13
4,14
4,14
1,4,13
12,15
4,12,15
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impac
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4,12,15 X
11
e)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
expanded entitlements need.ed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity 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?
SOUl’ce$
15
11
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 11
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
lssues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have 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)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
* Project contains mitigation that would reduce impacts too less than significant.
SOURCE REFERENCES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
4010 Page Mill Road, Revised Project Plans by Cartmell/Tam Architects, October 3, 2003
Paio Alto "Master List of Structures on Historic Building Inventory", Revised March 1996.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99)
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, 060348-5, Revised June 6,1999
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division Arborist
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Public Works- Water Quality Department
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
14.City of Palo Alto Fire Department
15.City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Location Map
Evaluation of Potentially Significant and other Relevant Environmental Impacts
I. Aesthetics
The project will add development to 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 designated a
scenic roadway. The structures will be constructed adjacent to the existing structure and is of insufficient
height to impede views. The garage and roof deck will not be higher than the first level of the house, which
is approximately 13’ above grade. Development on the site will.not be seen from Foothills Park. The ’
addition will be screened by mature vegetation, which will reduce {mpacts to views from Page Mill Road.
The swimming pool will be constructed at the rear of the property behind the existing building.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project design provides mitigation that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
II.Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance area and is not
designated as a Williamson Act Property. The site will continue to function as single family residential use,
which is a permitted use in the Opens Space zone district.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
III.Air Quality
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of
significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve grading, paving, and landscaping which has the
potential to cause localized dust ielated impacts resulting inincreases in airborne particulate matter. Dust
related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard
dust control measures.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operationa! project emissions would stem primarily from
motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected to result in new vehicle
trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less
than significant. -
13
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected by air quality
problems. The project is in the vicinity of other single-family residences but is not expected to create
¯ significant nuisance for sensitive receptors. As a single -family residence, the project will not create
substantial pollution concentrations in the area. Therefore, the project is not expected to have a significant
impact.
The site will continue to be used as a single-family residence. No additional intensity of use is expected as a
result of the project. This use does not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable odors when complete.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
IV. Biological Resources
Trees- The City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist has reviewed the project and ha~ determined that no
significant biological resources would be impacted by the project. Coast Live Oaks (O~uercus agrifolia) and
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) exist on the property. The applicant does not propose to remove any
trees to construct the project. Construction of the swimming pool in the vicinity of existing trees would
require mitigation measures to ensure their long-term survival. The project will be required to provide tree
protection, subject to the regulations contained in the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual.
The project site is identified as being in, and surrounded by, the biotic community of Mixed Oak
Woodland!Grassland. The proposed project will not significantly disturb existing plant life.
Residual Impact:.
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
Compliance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual and conditions of
approval for the grading and building permits. Prior to submittal for the
building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrigation plan indicating the
placement of irrigation to the Coast Redwood tree immediately adjacent to the
swimming pool,
V.Cultural Resources
The site will be a single-family residence with accessory facilities. Maps L-8 and L-9 of the Comprehensive
Plan indicate that the project site is located within an Archeological Resource Area of Low Sensitivity and
not Within a Williamson Act property. There are no identified historical, archaeological, or paleological
resources on the project site. Primary excavation will occur in the area of the pool at the rear of the property.
Palo Alto is ~known to contain widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including
human burials and a variety of artifacts. Mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact of construction
of the pool to a level of insignificance.
Residual Impact:Less Than Significant
14
Mitigation Measures:
VI. Geology and Soils
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains
are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit
the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office
shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native
American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease
immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the
site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
The entire state of California is a seismically active area. The City of Palo Alto is located within an area that
is very geologically active. TheSan Andreas Fault, long considered to the major seismic risk in California,
passes though the City. The Comprehensive Plan states that the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a
magnitude 8.4 earthquake that would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. No known
faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at this site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All
new construction would be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code, which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing lgss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Seismic ground shaking could occur on the site and could impact structures and occupants of the project
area due to seismic activity associated with regional faults such as the San Andreas, front range thrust faults
¯ across Palo Alto to the San Andreas and the Hayward Fault.
The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including
slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and landsliding" so that the risk from seismic events would be reduced to a level that must be
accepted by people living in a seismic active area, and therefore this would be considered a less than
significant impact.
No substantial changes to the site topography will occur as a result of the proposed project. The
construction of the swimming pool will involve removal.of soil to accommodate the pool. A final grading
and drainage plan for the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures
as part of the approved grading and drainage plan and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is
expected to mitigate and grading-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waster-water disposal systems.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project includes mitigation through the architectural review and building
permit review processes that will result in a less than significantimpacts.
15
VII.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 hazardous materials are found throughout the City, even in residentia! areas and homes. The
proposed project will not in’colve the storage or handling of significant amounts of hazardous materials or
waste. The swimming pool use and associated facilities may involve storage of minimal amounts of
chemicals intended for private use for maintenance of the pool. No significant storage areas for pool
chemicals will be necessary.
The project site is not located within two miles of either a public or private use airport. The project will not
affect circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project and, therefore, will not interfere with either
emergency response or evacuation. The project is in a developed area and will not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project includes mitigation through the architectural review and building
permit review processes that will result in a less than significant impacts.
VIII.Hydrolo~T and Water Quality
Construction of the addition and related structures would bring additional impervious area to the site. The
existing structure exceeds the maximum amount of impervious coverage for the lot. The project would
increase the coverage from 16 percent to 20.7 percent, where the maximum allowed coverage is 3,5 percent.
On a conforming, ten acre lot in this district, allowable lot coverage would be 15,246 square feet. The
applicant has requested a variance to allow this higher coverage. The existing drainage pattern of the site
will not be substantially altered as a result of the project. However, City Standard Conditions of Approval
require the incorporation of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all
construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control
Program. Standards conditions require a drainage plan to be submitted with the building permit application
to address potential water quality impacts.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies.
The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project applicant is also required to submit a
final site grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit that conveys site rtmoff to the
nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system and/or landscaped area per the adopted Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan. Conformance to the requirements of the Public Works Department will reduce
the flood hazard impacts to less than significant.
The project site is not an area that is subject inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project includes mitigation that will result in less than significant impacts.
16
IX.Land Use and Planning
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Open Space and the Zoning Ordinance
designation is OS; Open Space district. This project would not be in conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
With proper design, the project could meet the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Policy L- 1:
¯Policy L-69:
°Policy N-6:
Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands with in the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west
of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances for
very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the
area.
Preserve the scenic qualities o}’Palo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.
Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space
zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views
of hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides.
Policy N-7:All development in the foothill portion of the Plarming Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria.
Municipal Code Consistency
The project will conform to.all Municipal Code requirements, except for lot’ coverage and setback
requirements. The applicant is requesting exceptions to the municipal code based upon the hardship that the
lot size of one acre is significantly less than the minimum lot area of 10 acres, and that the entire lot is
located in the 100’ s~enic setback from Page Mill Road.
The project site contains protected species of trees, including Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and Coast
Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Construction could impact the health of these trees. The project will
contain mitigation measures as standard conditions that will require appropriate tree protection measures and
devices to ensure survival of these trees.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
M~ a~ Resources
Less than Significant.
Compliance with the Municipal Code, Comprehensive Plan and Tree
Technical Manual, in addition to the issuance of a variance, will result in less
than significant impacts.
The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral
17
resources are expected.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
XI. Noise
No impact
None required
The project is not expected to result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, excessive ground
shaking, or permanent noise levels in excess of standards established by local regulations or standards.
The project may cause temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction.
Standard mitigation measures will require that the builder observe the City of Palo Alto requirements for
construction times and hours.
The project is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Residual’ Impact:Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:The proj ect includes mitigation that will result in less than significant impacts.
XII. Population and Housing
The proj ect will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area, displace
substantial numbers of people or housing.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
No impact
None required
XIII Public Services
Fire
Although the site is located in a high fire hazard area as identified by the Comprehensive Plan, the
proposed project would not significantly impact fire service to the. The conditions of approval for the
project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The new facility would
not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
As the project does not add additional jobs, housing, there is no expected impacts to educational
resources of the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a
18
substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential or employee population.
Other Public Facilities
None
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
XIV. Recreation
No impact
None required
Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining
parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project would not
generate any additional population. No additional parkland would be required as a result of the project.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XV. Transportation and Traffic
The project is an addition to an existing single family residence. The project will not result in additional
vehicle trips to the site, and is not expected to generate significant traffic impacts.
Page Mill Road is designated as an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan. The approval of the
proposed project would not require any changes to be made to Page Mill Road. Additionally, the City’s
Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed addition will not have any transportation impacts.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The project would not involve the construction and placement of significant new electric, sewer, and water
services to the site. The connections for the swimming pool are not expected to create significant new
demand for services at this site.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
19
Attachment C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Steven Turner
Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
DATE:November 12, 2003
SUBJECT:4010 Page Mill Road [037D-10, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15]: Application
by Cartmell/Tam Architects on behalf of David Ditzel for a Site and
Design Review to allow a 1,677 square-foot addition to an existing
3,433 single-family residence and construction of a new swimming
pool, including a request for the following variances: a 29’ 6" side
yard setback where a 30’ setback is required, construction of an
exterior stairway and landing having a 46’ front yard setback and
construction of a new garage having a 69’ front yard setback where a
200’ setback is required, and a total impervious surface area of
20.7%, where 3.5% is normally the maximum allowed. Zone
District: Open Space (OS). Environmental Assessment: a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for public review and comment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning & Transportation Commission recommend approval of
the Negative Declaration, the application for Site & Design review, and the Variances to
the City Council, based upon the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The project site is a single parcel (APN 351-05-025) of approximately one acre in the
Palo Alto Foothills. The site contains a single-family residence of 3,433 square feet on
two levels. Accessory facilities include a hot tub, a greenhouse made of cloth material,
and a storage building. Access to the site is on Page Mill Road. The entire property is
located within a 200’ scenic setback. A portion of the existing house extends into the side
4010 Page Mill Road " Page 1
yard setback area. The site is gently sloped from the high point at the southwest corner to
the property line adjacent to Page Mill Road. Adjacent land uses include single-family
residential home sites to the north, south and west. The site’s easternmost boundary is
adjacent to the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. Numerous trees, including oaks, Coast
Redwoods and other pines and pine trees are located on the property.
The existing 3,433 square foot single-family residence is located closest to the rear and
¯ interior side property lines in a somewhat flat area of the lot. The existing impervious
area is 16 percent. The residence is composed of two levels with a maximum height of
16’6" at the adjacent ground elevation of the upper level main living area and 24"6" as
measured from Bade at the lower level garage. Exterior materials include stucco siding
and asphalt roof.
Proiect Description
The project includes a 237 square foot addition at the upper level for expansion of the
master bedroom and bath, a 1,440 square foot addition at the lower level for a new
attached garage and storage area, an uncovered deck above the proposed garage, a new
exterior stairway and landing for the main entrance and a 16’ x 32’ swimming pool and
deck at the rear of the house.
The existing driveway would be slightly modified to accommodate the new garage. A
backup area will be created so that automobiles would not have to back out on to Page
Mill Road. A new concrete pad adjacent to the backup area would accommodate a
proposed propane tank, which would provide a fuel source of the residence for heating
and cooking.
Exterior materials for the addition include a stucco finish to match the existing finish and
horizontal redwood siding around the garage deck and garage elevations.
A copy of the applicant’s project description letter, with supporting documentation, is
contained in Attachment D.
As previously described, the project includes an addition to an existing single-family
residence in the Open Space district. The applicant has also requested variances for the
project. Development in the Open Space district and exceptions to the zoning ordinance
may be allowed if the required Site and Design and Variance findings can be made.
¯Site and Desi~qa Review Findings
The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as
follows:
3875 Page Mill Road Page 2
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 project does not detract from the natural character of the site. The primary use of
the site would remain as a single-family residence requiring only minimal disturbance
to land. The project introduces minimal development including two small additions, a
swimming pool and a modified driveway that would be in scale with similar
development in the area.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, o1"
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project would maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
in that the proposed design, size and use of the site is consistent with the existing
residences on Page Mill Road and does not increase the intensity of use. The
construction of all improvements would be governed by the regulations of the current
Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure
safety and a high quality of development,
3.Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in
construction of the project.
The use of permeable materials will help reduce rainwater flows across the land. The
proposed design of the driveway, walkways and accessory uses and orchard will
follow existing site topo~aphy.
4. The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community
Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as
described on Page 6 of this report. The project proposal meets the Open Space
Development Criteria as described on Pages 7 and 8 of this report and the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas.
Variance for Lot Coverage and Setbacks
The project site is located entirely within the 200’ scenic setback along Page Mill Road.
The proposed building additions would require variances from the setback requirement.
In addition, the lot size is nonconforming. A conforming lot within the Open Space
district is ten acres. A ten-acre lot would have an impervious area maximum of 3°5
percent, which is over 15,000 square feet of coverage. The project site is approximately
one acre, which would allow only 1,500 square feet of coverage.
3875 Page Mill Road Page 3
The applicant has requested the following variances:
1.A 29’9’ side yard setback for the main living area addition, where a 30’ side yard
setback is normally required.
2.A 46’ front yard setback for the exterior entry stairway and landing, where a 200’
scenic setback is normally required.
3. A 69’ front yard setback for the garage addition, where a 200’ scenic setback is
normally required.
4..Impervious area of 20.7 percent (9,350 square feet), where 3.5 percent (1,524
square feet) would be the maximum allowed. This is a 4.7 percent (2,249 square
feet) increase above existing impervious area.
All required findings for the setback and impervious area can be made, as indicated
below:
1., There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district.
As previously mentioned, the site is nonconforming for lot area and is located entirely
within the 200’ scenic setback area along Page Mill Road. Any addition to the
existing building would be located within this setback area. In addition, the existing
house extends imo the 30’ required side yard setback.
Development within the Open Space district is limited by the maximum impervious
area of 3.5 percent. The existing lot area of one acre would allow only 1,524 square
feet of impervious area, which would include the building footprint and areas such as
driveways and walkways.
The granting to 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.
Since the entire lot is located within the 200’ scenic setback, no development would
be able to occur on any portion of the property. The existing structure extends
approximately six inches into the side yard setback. Any addition at the rear of the
structure would extend into the side yards setback in order to line up with the existing
wall in the setback.
Compliance with the 3.5 percent impervious surface and building coverage would not
allow adequate area for impervious surfaces or building on this site.
3. ]’he granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in
3875 PageMi!IRoad Page4
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
The proposed additions were sited to keep the building footprint compact and utilize
areas that have already been developed. The new garage would be sited on part of the
existing drive.way. Siting the project in an area of the lot already developed respects
the native vegetation. The project would respect existing site topography and
vegetation to shield the project from off site views. As the project involves single
story additions the project maintains a low profile to minimize off site visual impact
on the neighbors and the opens space areas.
Visibility and Aesthetics
The project has been designed in such a way that the visual and aesthetic impacts have
been minimized with respect to adjacent users and motorists travelling on Page Mill
Road. The project includes single story additions that are compatible with the existing
structure and are sited in such a way that they would not be Seen from Page Mill Road.
The project would not disturb existing mature vegetation near Page Mill Road, which acts
as a vegetative screen.
The swimming pool will be located at the rear of the property and would not be visible
from the roadway.
Lighting
Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a lighting plan be submitted for staff
review prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan would indicate the location, type,
and voltage rating for each light. Low-voltage gound level lights, rather than bollard
type lights, would be appropriate to provide safety and security for automobile and
pedestrian circulation around the site.
Tree Protection
The site contains numerous oak, redwood and pine tree specimens. No tree removal is
proposed in conjunction with this project.
Project construction would occur in accordance with the requirements outlined in the
conditions proposed by the City’s Managing Arborist.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, both with
respect to the Open Space/Controlled Development land use category and its adherence
to the following policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element:
3875 Page Mill Road P~ge 5
Policy L- 1 : The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of undeveloped land
west Of the Foothill Expressway and dunipero Serra as open space, with allowances
made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the
area. The project site is located southwest of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra
Boulevard, within the Open Space district. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-family
uses are permitted within this district. The project scope is of low intensity, in that the
building additions are small, totaling 1,677 square feet. The swimming pool would be
located at or near ~ade at the rear of the house. The entry stairway and landing, located
at the front of the house, is of a style than compliments the architectural of the structures.
All of the development would be screened by the existing mature vegetation or would be
located in areas that are not normally visible from 0ff-site areas.
Policy L-5: The ComprehensivePlan states to maintain the scale and character of the
. City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to the#" size and
scale. The project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the area and
does not detract from the natural character of the site. The proposed improvements
would result in minimal impacts to neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the project site is located within an
Archaeological Resource Area of Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is "known to contain widely
dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a
variety of.artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all ~ading and construction activities is
required, if any archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time, retention
of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the field, notification of the Santa Clara
County Medical Examiner’s office, and if native American remains are discovered,
evaluation of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required. The Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California, would provide implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities ofPalo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. The additions would not seriously impede views of
the foothills to users of Page Mill Road due to their smali scale and profile.
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria. Conformance
with the Open Space Development Criteria is discussed below.
Open Space Development Criteria
The project conforms to the policies of the Natural Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Open Space Development Criteria of Policy
N-7. A description of how the project meets the pertinent criteria is listed below:
3875 Page M,i!l Road Page
]’he development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden f’om
view. The project scope is of low intensity, in that in that tile building additions are
small, totaling 1,677 square feet. The swimming pool would be located at or near
grade at the rear of the house. The entry stairway and landing, located at the front of
the house, is of a style than compliments the architectural of the structures. Although
the project is located within the 200’ scenic roadway setback along Page Mill Road.
the project would have a low profile and would be screened by the existing mature
vegetation.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views
of neighboring properties. The site contains ample mature vegetation that assists in
screening the project from adjacent properties. The building additions are small and
have a low profile that is compatible with the existing structure and the topography of
the site. Existing fencing minimizes views of the addition on the adjacent property
owners to the south.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines
should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural
from a distance. The siting takes advantage of the existing topography and vegetation
to shield the project from off site views. Mature Vegetation would .not be disturbed,
thereby retaining the existing natural view of the project site.
Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the drip!ines of existing trees. Locate development
to minimize the need for grading. Excavation would be required to install the
swimming pool. Minimal grading would occur at the driveway and turn-around area.
Grading and/or fil! would potentially be used at the area near swimming pool to create
a level surface, but would not be used in areas adjacent to trees and other foliage.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. New
building materials, including wood siding, railings, exterior stairway, and new colors
are proposed to blend in with the natural environment. Retaining walls constructed
for the turn-around area would be made of natural materials.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The project proposal is in compliance with the development regulations of the OS
District (except those portions of the project that would require variances, as described
above) and the Site and Design Review Combining District regulations (PAMC 18.82).
3875 Page Mi!! Road Page 7
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for this project proposal was provided
by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition,
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a hearing
notice card.
TIMELINE
If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval or approval with
conditions, the project applications would be forwarded to the City Council for final
action, as Architectural Review Board recommendation is not required for a single-family
use, accessory buildings and facilities. The actiondeadline for this project is October 10,
2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared and has. been available for a 20-day public
review period beginning on October 29, 2003 and ending on November 17, 2003. A copy
of the document is provided as Attachment C.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A:Location Map
Attachment B.Record of Land Use Action, including recommended Conditions of
Approval
Attachment C:Negative Declaration
Attachment D.Project Description Letter and Supporting Documentation
Attachment E:Project Plan Set (Commissioners Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Cathy Cartmell, Applicant
David Ditzel, Owner
Prepared by: Steven TurneUt
Planner
Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning .
¯.,Department/D,vlsion Head Approval: ~~---~
Lisa Grote, ChieT Planning Official
Page 8
~, 3981
4010 Page Mill Road ~--~~ ~995
Attachment A
4010 4001 VAC
4041
31105
PO£570
3134
O 2~ 05
P Alto
mvera, 2003-~ 1-05 ~4:33:08
4010 Page Mill Road
03-D-10
03-V-15
03-EIA-15
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Attachment D
40!0 _Page Mill Road*: Application for a Site and Design Review to allow a 1, 700
square foot addition to an existing single family residence, including a request for the
following variances: a 29’6" side yard setback where a 30’ setback is required, a 46’
front yard setback where a 200’ setback is required, and a total lot coverage of 20. 7%,
where 3.5% is normally the maximum allowed. Zone District: Open Space (OS).
Environ mental Assessme.n t: a Negative Declaration h as been prep ared for publie
review and comment. File Nos: 03-D-lO, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15. SR Weblink:
http://www, eit3~ol~paloaBo, org/eit~,agenda/publish/planning_transportation_meetings/26og.pdl~
Mr. Steve Turner, Planner: Thank you Chairman Griffin and Commissioners. Staff recommends
that the Plaaning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the negative
declaration, the application for a Site and Design Review and the variances to the City Council
based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval located in Attachment B. The
variances that the applicant is requested on located on page four of your Staff Report. That
.would be a 29 foot, six inch side yard setback for the main living area addition where a 30 foot
side yard setback is normally required, a 46 foot front yard setback for the exterior entry stairway
and landing where a 200 foot scenic setback is normally required, a 69 foot front yard setback for
the garage addition where a 200 foot scenic setback is normally required and imper:cious area of
20.7% where 3.5% is normally required.
Commissioners this project is before you this evening for Site and Design Review and for an
addition to an existing single family residentia! structure ha the Open Space District. Site and
DesiN~ Review is required for all development prior to securing any permit or any other approval
for the construction or expansion of facilities. As mentioned in the Staff Report the project site
is a one acre parcel located in the Open Space District and contains a single family residential
structure and accessory facilities. The site is currently legal non-complying for lot area in that
ten acres is the minimum lot area required in this district. The site became non-complylng in the
early 1970s when the zone district changed from Residential Estate to Open Space.
In addition the entire site is located within the 200 foot scenic setback along this portion of Page
Mi!l Road. This setback was established in 1972 after the construction of the existing residential
structure. Therefore any structure requiring building permits would also need a variance from
the 200 foot scenic setback regulation. The requested variances for this project are again
described in the Staff Report.
At the request of one of your Commissioners Staff has created a table to describe the basic
zoning-parameters of this project in comparison with the Residential Estate zone district, which
this site was once a part of, and the Open Space District. You should have those tables at your
places and it is also up on the screen. It basically illustrates that the project is very similar is
scope to what would normally be required for a Residential Estate District. A big difference
between Residential Estate and Open Space is that in the Open Space District there is no floor
area requirement and the impervious area calculation is 3.5% of the site area and that includes
walkways and driveways that are constructed of impervious surface. In the Residential Estate
you have something called lot coverage, which is similar to an R-1. It looks at building
footprint.
The Planning and Transportation Commission may want to discuss issues related to the design of
the project such as the amount of impervious area requested for the project. The areas for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
driveways and walkways are included in the pervious area calculations since they are proposed
to be using materials such as asphalt and concrete. It is possible that alternative materials could
be used to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the site. In addition the site slopes dowaa
to Page Mill Road, which creates design challenges for the project especially for construction of
the pool and the retaining wall.
The record of Land Use Action in Attachinent B of the Staff Report contains recommended
conditions for tree protection, lighting and ~ading activities. The Commission may want to
conmaent on the adequacy of these conditions.
The applicant and property owners are here to make a presentation and answer any questions that
you may have. A model is available for viewing and material sanaples are also available for
inspection. That concludes the Staff Report. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Steven. Would the applicant care to step forward and introduce
themselves please?
Msl Cathy Cartmell, Cartme11/Tam Architects, 4001 PaRe Mill Road, Los Altos Hills: Hello I
am here to introduce you to a project located at 4010 Page Mill Road. This property is located in
the Open Space District in the City of Palo Alto. It is on upper Page Mill Road about Six miles
due south of 280.
Some aspects of this property that I would like to point out to you include some of the things that
Steven has already mentioned. That there is an existing residence on the property and also there
is a storage shed that exists and a cloth greenhouse and also a hot tub with adeck in the rear
yard. This residence was built in 1967 and is 3,433 square feet. It is tt~ree bedrooms and two
baths with a two car garage. It is on two levels the upper level beingthe primary living area and
then the lower level having an accessory room and the current two-car garage. This property is
one acre and as Steven mentioned currently the zoning is a ten-acre minimum. It is located in
the Open Space Dis{rict and because it is one acre it does create several challenges. The OS
District uniformly has setback requirements of 30 feet front yard, 30 feet side yard and 30 feet in
the rear yard. However, this .particular property having Page Mill Road located on the east and
north sides of it is subjected to the scenic corridor setback of 200 feet which does encompass the
whole property, the prope.rty being at its deepest maybe 148 feet. One of the other cha!lenges
that the OS District zoning does provide is the 3.5% building and impervious surface coverage.
On a ten acre property that would allow a little over 15,000 square feet of developable area
-including the building and impervious area. However, when you apply that same 3.5% to a one
acre site it allows only a development area of 1,500 square feet. The current property as it stands
has building and impervious surface coverage of approximately 16%. As I mentioned to the east
and to the north of the property is Page Mill Road. To the south of the property it is bordered by
another one acre parcel ~¢ith a single family residence. To the west of the property is Los
Trancos Open Space Preserve. Some of the other criteria we considered when designing this
property was that the existing residence was to remain and its development footprint already
exists. Around the development footprint, which is the whole upper part of the site, which has
been ~aded in the past when the property was first developed, is mostly non-native plants.
However, on the north side as the property slopes down is native oak woodland adjacent to Page
Mill Road. Some of the other aspects that we consider when designing is of course is the client
program. Very close to the proposed addition to this property is a very large pine tree that we
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
45
46
47
wanted to preserve so we did work around that with the design. Also we do consider the weather
up in this area because it is more severe than the weather dowaa here in that when the storms
come in there are high winds and a little more protection is sometimes wanted around doors. We
did also of course keep in mind the Open Space Design Criteria which includes minimizing the
impact on the enviro~lmeut and that includes keeping the development compact, keeping the
development in one area of the site. We also wanted to respect the view from the road and other
public areas. We also tried to keep in mind the privacy and the view of the neighbors, both the
neighbors to the south directly adjacent to this property and also the neighbors across the street.
The Open Space Criteria also recormnends following the natural terrain and the preservation of
trees and native landscape. They also recommend you site the building to minimize grading and
so we did try to do that by placing the addition on a portion of the property that was already
graded and maintaining that grade. The Open Space District also asks you to consider natural
materials and colors and maintain a rural character and a low profile.
So while we were designing we did take into consideration all this criteria and as we were going
to keep the existing house in place we sited the additions of course both to the north and to the
west. We wanted to keep the roofline of the existing house. It creates a nice longitudinal axis to
work off of. To the rear of the house we would like to add a four foot area to better utilize the
existing house and take advantage of the properties the existing house Contains as it sits. As we
do that we would also enclose an existing covered patio that is surrounded by the house and is an
internal patio and add a covered rear patio to the back. Also in the rear yard we would like to
add aswimming pool adjacent to the existing hot tub and place it in an existing lawn area. This
is really about the flattest area on the property but it still does have some terrain to it that needs
to be dealt with. The new garage and storage area that is. going to be added to the north side of
the house does accentuate the longitudinal axis. It also provides a balcony to the upper story
living space. When we introduce this addition we .tried to tie it to the existing house by creating
a diagonal line that wraps all the way around the balcony and comes across the frout of the house
and across the front of the existing house to the front door to help tie the two together. This also
gave us the opportunity to correct some Water damage that has been done to the frout of the
house. The hardscape there has been underminedby water and created some water problems for
the downstairs area in the house. So we were going to take this opportunity to create a more
welcoming entry and a covered entrance place to enter the house. When we added the new
garage we needed to alter the existing driveway to provide a new turnaround. So we have
created a hammerhead to back out of the garage so you can head out of the driveway head first.
We also would like to widen the driveway to provide better fire access. The owners would also
like to convert to gas. So we are introducing a propane tank to provide gas heating, cooking and
water heating. The house colors would be neutral in that they would be gray. Then we would
introduce redwood siding that would be stained natural colors.
In order to do all this we have to request these variances. A variance on the side yard because
the existing house currently sits in the side yard by about six or seven inches and in order to keep
the south wall straight without creating a six or seven inch job in it we would have to ask for a
variance for that side yard. The othervariance is to the 200-foot front yard setback. Anything
we do on this property would require a variance to that setback requirement. The other variance
we are asking for is a variance to the 315% site coverage required in the OS District. As I
mentioned before when you apply that deve!opmeut restriction to a one acre !ot it does on!y
allow a total of 1,500 feet and that is for everything including any paving~ any building. If you
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
45
6
47
48
look at the model that is a little over half of what the driveway is. The driveway is around 2,500
square feet.
We did review a variety of different design solutions for this property and we worked hard to
reduce the size and utilize the existing aspects of the house to maximize its use and still meet the
Client’s minimum programs. We do have full support of the neighbors and some of them are
here to speak on our behalf. I hope this project meets with your approval. I, myself, would be
happy to answer any questions or my partner, Tony Tam, if I can’t answer.
Chair .Griffin: Thank you. Commissioners do you have any questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Have you considered converting the asphalt driveway into a pervious
surface so as to have an impact on this 16% to 20% increase that you are proposing?
Ms. Cartmell: We have considered the permeable concrete but we feel they don’t have much of
a track record. The driveway, is on a slope and we are concerned about it being able to maintain
that.
Conmaissioner Packer: The 16% that you say is the current impervious does that include the
asphalt driveway or not?
Ms. Cartme11: I got that actually out of Steven’s report and I believe it is building and site
’coverage. So it is the same number, it represents the same thing.
Chair Griffin: I am going to ask you a question also related to the driveway. When I was there
for my site visit I couldn’t help but notice the width of the driveway while not terrifically wide
seemed to be adequate. I am curious as to why you are looking to expand the width of it
particularly considering the sensitivity here that we are looking at on site coverage.
Ms. Cartmel!: My experience with the Fire Department up in this area is that they do require
wider driveways to get in and out of the properties.
Chair Griffin: Has Fire actually ruled on your plans?
Ms. Cartmell’. No.
Chair Griffin: Okay, so that still needs to be done.
this the County we are talking about?
Ms. Cartmell: It is the City.
Chair Griffin: It is City.
Ms. Cartmell: Yes.
Would it be the City Fire Department or is
M_r. To_n_,v Tam° Cartme11!Tam Architects: May ! address your question? ¯
Chair Griffin: Would you introduce yourself please?
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
45
46
47
48
Mr. Tam: My name is Tony Tam. I am the partner of Cathy Cartmell. With all the questions
that you posed here I thilzk that they are great questions. The impervious concrete is something
that we are consistently keeping our eye on and using because I think it helps not just the
calculation but I think that in the long run if it proves to be what they promise it doei a lot for
permeability and so forth. So if it will withstand the dynamic loads that the fire trucks, the big
trucks are what we are concerned about not really the cars, that possibly go up and stop on the
dime. That data still hasn’t come in yet pertaining to that type of product. We have done a
project in the Open Space District and the Fire Department did require a wider driveway. I think
that we would concur with you in that the width of the driveway would obviously need to meet
the fire safety requirements. Let’s defer that to what they require.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Mr. Tam. Steve.
Mr. Turner: Chairman Griffin, as part of the project review the Fire Department did review the
plans for this project and they did not make any comment specifically on the driveway. So we
could possibly assume that they thought that the driveway was adequate. If the Commission
recommended a narrower driveway we would have to confer with our Fire Department to see if
that is acceptable.
Chair Griffin: So just to clarify, you are saying that Fire did look at the plans and the plan that
they saw was the wider version. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: So consequently we don’t know whether they would approve or disapprove the
existing dimension of the driveway width as it stands today.
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Steve,while we have you, can you address the issue of permeable
surface for driveways because we have seen them inother Open Space applica!ions before us.
So apparently they must be worldng somewhere. Would you recommend it for this site? I
understand there is a slope issue.
Mr. Turner: Right. There are a number of permeable surfaces that can work. They do depend
upon slope and other’ site characteristics but as you recall on the project down the street, the
¯ Ih~iss project, they had an Echostone crushed ~anite type of surface that was acceptable to the
Fire Department. That is a pervious surface that does work. We would need to check with the
Fire Department to see if that type of surface at that slope would be acceptable for emergency
vehicle access. There are a number of products on the market that are becoming quite
satisfactory materials in other jurisdictions for permeability and for support structure for
emergency vehicles. We would be happy to recon~rnend those types of materials to the
app!ican~.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
6
47
Commissioner Burt: So Steve given what you just said, that there are the alternatives that we
just had one up the road from this one, we had one on Los Trancos Road where I believe we
required a permeable surface and that was acceptable and that had quite a slope as well, why is
Staff recommending that we accept this variance with an impermeable surface?
Mr. Turner: The driveway as asphalt will work as a driveway. We felt that although there are
additional materials the applicant has told us that because of the slope of the driveway that a
pervious surface like asphalt is the way to go. However, we can work with the Fire Department
and the applicant to see if there is another material that’s out there that will work. The driveway
on I think the Kniss project was relatively flat and that is why that material, the crushed granite,
may have worked better on that site and may not work as well on the project before us. We
would be happy to work with the Fire Department, Publie Works and the applicant to see if we
can come up with a material that would be pervious and therefore reduce the impervious area
calculation.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. Is there a current garage on the site? ¯ " ..
Mr. Turner: I believe that there is. The applicant can probably provide more information on
that.
Chair Griffin: Under the house.
Ms. Cartmell: Yes sir, it is under the current house. It is in the lower level of the house.
Commissioner Burt: What would happen to that garage under this plan?
Ms. Cartmell: It will be converted to living space.
Commissioner Burr: This proposed garage is 36 by 40 feet?
Ms. Cartmell: Yes, I believe that is true.
Comrnissioner Burt: Can you explain :why there is a need for such a large garage given that it
requires Open Space variances for us to grant it?
Ms. Cartmell: It is a three car garage. The current owner does have three cars they would like to
house. There is also a workshop behind the garage.
Commissioner Burt: Where is the proposed propane tank?
Ms. Cartmell: k is [off mike]
Commissioner Burt: I see it. Then finally on the landscape p!an you have existing non-native
vegetation and you are going to be redoing some landscaping I presume as part of this
redeve!opme_n~
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
45
46
47
48
Ms. Cartmell: We were maintaining the existing landscaping pretty much as it was. We are
adding a little bit of rockscaping and a specimen tree to the front but we are leaving the existing
landscaping as it is.
Commissioner Burr: Okay, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would concur with fellow Commissioners about the driveway and
finding a permeable surface there. The Staff Report mentions several times as did the applicam
that what would be allowed here would be 1,500 square feet of impermeable surface but what
currently exists is 7,100 square feet. That is almost half oft he amount of impervious surface that
would be allowed on a ten acre parcel. So given that I think it is incumbent upon the applicant to
make valiant efforts not to increase that. Sothe question is was there consideration of a two car
garage instead of a three car garage? What about a different landing around the swimming pool
so that that could be a permeable surface? Those are the two questions at the moment.
Mr. Tam: The Open Space District requires three Car parking, two covered.and one uncovered,
but because of the upper Page Mill Road as the inclement weather blows across we regularly get
80 mile an hour winds coming at you. So most people who do live up in the upper Page Mill
Road do choose to have all three of the required parking under cover. I’m sorry there are four
spaces required. Nonetheless because of the requirements that are imposed on the Open Space
District and the inclement weather that the property is constantly subject to most if not all
property owners up in the upper Page Mill Road do choose to house the cars.
Chair Griffin: Bomaie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question for Staff. I don’t mean this to sound argumentative but
it might sound that way. This is a non-complying facility and your code says that non-
complying facilities can’t be enlarged. What is non-complying is the impervious surface. So I
want to ask Staff why are you recommending that the amount of impervious surface be made
larger when it seems to not be accord with our code. That is 18.94.080.
Ms. Grote: Well they are requesting that a variance be considered for that non-compliance
because this is a special circumstance where all of the site is in this special setback where it is a
different condition than you would ordinarily find in an OS District because of the size. So they
are specifically asking for a variance from those requirements. We have definitely heard your
comments about the amount of impervious coverage and there are ways to explore reducing what
they have proposed or making it less of an expansion.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I want to raise one other issue to that I noticed on the site visit today
and wondered if Staff could comment on this. There is a shed that pretty recently placed on the
front part of the parcel. It certainly is within the front setback because the whole parcel is but it
is very ne~ tlne road. !s th~ counted in the Lmpervious surface or not?
Mr. Turner: That is also counted as part of the impervious surface.
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
45
46
47
Commissioner Holman: What is Staff’s opinion about, when I had brief conversation today with
the applicant it was stated that that was temporary? Can Staff comment about what should
happen, what will happen, what you anticipate happeni.ng and what you would require to happen
with that if this proj ect goes through?
Mr. Turner: If the shed is greater than 120 square feet then building permits are required for
those types of structures that have any sort of permanence to them. I think the Building Division
is pretty strict on what types of buildings they see as permanent or temporary meaning that they
see most buildings as permanent and not temporary. So anything over 120 square feet would
require a building permit and the applicant would have to apply for that.
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t notice the dimension of this. It is fairly sizable but it may well
be within the 120 square feet. I guess the point is, this is going to sound very harsh, it was
placed there within the setback area and I am not sure quite how to address that. Maybe Staff
could comment on that, Whether it is 120 square feet or 60 square feet, it seems like it is there
without permission.
Mr. Turner: We could take a look at those structures that are on the property. We could require
them to move them perhaps or at the very least go ahead and get a building permit for those
structures. That is most likely what we-would do moving forward from here is to make sure that
those items that had not received building permits get building permits if they are able.
Commissioner Holman: But wouldn’t it be more than a building permit? Wouldn’t it also need
to have review because it is Open Space District?
Mr. Turner: It would be part of this overall Site and Design Review that we are looking at.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Does that also apply to the greenhouse or is that viewed as a temporary .
structure? Is that exempt from requirements?
Mr. Turner: I think that the applicant can comment more on the permanence of that structure and
how that is being used. Perhaps they can provide more information on that structure.
Commissioner Burr: I would be glad to hear them but I am more interested in our own City’s
interpretation of that structure.
Mr. Turner: Any sort of site improvements that are on the site would be part of the site and
Design Review whether it is the new shed that Karen spoke of or the cloth greenhouse structure
that is on the plans. All those facilities have been included in the overall impervious area
coverage that is presented in front of the Cormnission tonight.
Commissioner Burt: Right. My concerns aren’t limited to the impervious area coverage. It is a
structure that is within our Scenic co~idor there ~nd ! regret that ! didn’t have an opportup~ty to
do a site visit because I had wanted to be able to see how visible that is. Maybe other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioners can sMre their insights with me on that greenhouse and whether it is visible
either from Page Mill or from the adjacent Open Space Districts.
Chair Griffin: I am wondering before we get into the comments perhaps it is appropriate to have
the public make some remarks.
Commissioner Butt: Mine is a question.
Chair Griffin:
Ms. Cartmell:
about?
Do you want it answered now?
Could I give you a picture of the greenhouse so you can see what they are talking
Commissioner Holman: In absence of anyone else responding the greenhouse is very visible
from the roadway. It also looks like it.has been there for quite some time. As I understood from
the owner who was p}esent today that the surface or sheathing has been replaced numerous times
because it has blown off. The structure looks like it might be fairly old. I don’t really know how
long that has been there. I think the applicant said it had been there for quite a long time, What
brought my attention to the shed is it looked pretty obviously new and it is also visible, not as
visible certainly as the greenhouse, but it is visible.
Chair Griffin: Bormie.
Commissioner’Packer: I didn’t see a variance request for setbacks for the pool. The pool is right
up against the rear yard. Shouldn’t there be a variance request for that as well?
Mr. Turner: Not for the poo!. The pool is allowed per the Municipal Code to be located within
the side yard no more than three feet from the property line. So that is allowed by the zoning.
¯ Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Steven that is because it only extends one foot above grade, is that the rationale
there?
Mr. Turner: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: I must say it looked from the model that t.he terrain back there at the pool location
was somewhat subject to change. I am just wondering where is grade going to be actually.
Mr. Turner: It d~pends upon the slope of the lot but on an essentially flat lot of a slope of less
than 10% grade as measured at the lowest ground elevation at a point measured five feet from
the house I guess around the perimeter. So you take ~ve feet out from the house, draw a circle
around it, find where that lowest point is and that is grade. The applicant is aware of that
requirement and I believe has a portion of the model to show you the pool and maybe can
provide other details about.the construction and how that would meet that requirement.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
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
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: A follow- up to Michael’s question. 1 look at the drawings and the model
here. I see the tall tree behind the house appears to be near one corner of the intended pool
location and that makes it look as if there is going to be a grading requirement necessary to put in
the pool. Is that correct and is that addressed in the rdport?
Mr. Turner: The report does not address any sort of grading requirement for the pool. The
applicant may provide more. information on the grading that would be required for that.
Commissioner Butt: Would that grading be permissible?
Mr. Turner: That grading would be permissible subject to Public Works recommended
conditions of approval.
Con~-nissioner Burt: But from the standpoint of conformance with the Open Space guidelines
that additional grading is not an issue?
Mr. Turner: That additional ~ading would not be an issue.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
Chair Griffin: Then if there are no further questions we would like to hear comments from the
public. I have four cards. The first one is Richard Geiger followed by Timothy Drabik and Scott
Selover. Good evening Richard.
Mr. Richard Geiger, 714 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I own one of the
properties across the street from this site. My feeling is they have done a very good job of
blending the house in, that it essentially has very minimal impact. I am certainly for it. I am for
them being able to expand and use the property. I think it is commendable that they have hired a
high quality architect to match the addition to the house.
I will make a conm-~ent that that shed has been there for a long time. I know the original owners
had a daughter who had a horse and it was used as a hay barn for their horse. That was over 30
years ago: That was just a comment.
I am very satisfied with seeing this. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Now Timothy. If you could introduce yourself, please.
Mr. Timothy J.Drabik. 3995 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am an across the
street neighbor of the owners and actually a next door neighbor of the architects, I know them
all to be considerate and thoughtful neighbors. I have no concerns about the project. I am very
happy to see how much effort has been put into trying tO make sure the character of the Open
Space area is kept and also efforts to make the experience non-intrusive to the neighbors. As
people who have visited the site will recall and those can see the model now wilt see the house is
raised above Page Mill Road and in fact it is very difficult to see the main building site from
Page Mi!!. k is not possible to see it from my home. ! would ven.~are to say that for most or a!!
of the neighbors the building site itself is invisible. One final thing regarding the question of the
percentage ofimpeladOUS space, on the west side I think of this house are hundreds and hundreds
1 of acres of open land with no impervious surfaces whatsoever. If the specification, the 3.5%,
2 was computed with regard to having a number of adjacent parcels with that anaount of coverage
3 then that idea would breakdown because there is nothing at all completely along the half plane
4 adjacent to the house. There is really a great deal of open land. Thank you very much.
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Tl~ank you. Scott Selover.
Mr. Scott Selover. 4020 Page Mill Road. Palo Alto: My wife and I own the property direct!y to
the south. So we actually are the only property that really has a view of the site. During the time
that Dave and Mike and Tony and Cathy have been working this project they have regularly
engaged my wife and I in looking at ways of minimizing the impact of this project on us. In fact
from our house looking down onto theirs the only thing we wind up seeing is this little four foot
bump out that basically squares up the end of the house. The addition of the enclosed patio is
"absolutely consistent with improving the sight lines from out house. The pool is not visible.
You might be surprised. We are the closest people to that piece but they have done a wonderful
job of tudking it in close up to that hot tub abutment. So from our house we can’t see any of the
improvements. The only thing we are going to see is an improvement to the roof structure, an
improvement of the symmetry of the building, the enclosed patio. Like I say, during this whole
process we have had regular dialogues. They have been very interested in getting our input.
They have listened to the concerns about lighting and visual impact.. They have been extremely
thoughtful in keeping us engaged in the project and I wholeheartedly endorse the project and
would solicit your support as well. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: That is quite a testimonial. Thank you. Finally the applicant David Ditzel. Good
evening.
Mr. David Ditzel, 4010 Page Mill Road~ Palo Alto: Thank you. I live at the property in
question. I have lived there for the past 16 years. I picked this particular space because I am
extremely fond of the open space area and wanted to find a situation exactly as we have it there.
I have a tremendous respect for the area. I got married a few years ago, my wife is here and also
our step-son lives at the house now, which has caused an increase inthe number of vehicles. I
used to live there by myself. This is one of the reasons for causing some of the change2 We use
the open space trails regularly and we have going with the architects for over two years and I
have thought over the last several years about what to do with this property. When I originally
purchased it I had some ideas in mind for the wonderful location that it is. I also wanted it to fit
into the open space area in particular. As we hiked the trails behind the house we designed the
particular additions so they would be the least visible possible. A typical thing one might do
when adding an addition to a house would be add more living rooms. In fact we have not done
that. We have limited this to basically a garage with a deck area because we felt that the roofline
if we were to add above the garage there, add another floor, which is a typical temptation, would
have been visible from the Open Space District. So we have trying to becautious about that.
Another issue we struggle with and you have had some discussion here is the impervious area.
One of the features of the design in particular, we have examined some of the other structures on
the property or expanding in other places for variances, is for those of you who visited today
there is a driveway and in fact the new strucm~re sits exactly on top of the driveway so as to
minimize the additional impervious area that would be there. So that was certainly a particular
consideration and just the overall structure of the design was meant to fit in with the terrain of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
the landscape, to reduce the visibility from both the road, from the neighbors and from the Open
Space District.
Just to clarify another question I think Mr. Oeiger referred to as well since the house was
constructed in the late 1960s there has been a horse shed on the property. Over the last 40 years
or so that structure deteriorated so in fact that had been upgraded. Some of you who saw the
structure noticed that it seemed to have been new but that was basically an existing structure that
was there, it was falling apart, a bit of an eyesore and so what I have done is simply kind of
improved that particular structure trying to reduce the eye strain on anybody driving up Page
Mill Road. But it is in the san~e location as the previous structure has been for the last 40 years.
My other particular hobby is gardening which is one of the other reasons why I opted to buy a
house up in the hills rather than down in the area where the land would have been smaller. I
would have loved to have gotten ten acres but was not able to find such a property. The garden
area here is what is called the cloth covered greenhouse is mainly for tomato gardening. I found
it was simply too cold with the 2,000 foot elevation to grow my passion which is tomatoes there.
So that is what that structure is for and I would consider that to be a temporary structure and as
the house is done I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that could be changed or the cover comes off
from time to time. So ma?~be we shouldn’t be .counting that as part of the impervious space for
the time when it is covered. As for the driveway and other things I think if you will look at the
particular diagram here since most of the existing driveway is now being covered by the
structure the remaining portion of the driveway although we could use an impervious material, in
fact I am quite open to that, I an~ not sure it would change the overall area significantly enough
to make it a requirement. But in fact I will make a commitment to you examine with our
architects to see if there is an appropriate material there and to reexamine the width of the
driveway. I know that Fire Department has in fact pulled up our driveway before for either our
site or for neighboring sites the width seemed to be a little bit small. Again, I ttzink that is really
a condition that we are doing to make it easier for the rest of the City. So I will be here also to
answer any further questions you have this evening. Thank you.
ChaLr Griffin: Thank you. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have a question for you. That shed that is out from, you are adding quite a
bit of storage spac.e into this building. Did you intend to keep that shed if it is in bad shape? Not
the covered one that you are using for the plant but the other one, were you planning to keep that
shed after you installed all this other storage space you are putting in?
Mr. Ditzel: The shed there, was a replacement for existing things. I guess after we build the
house I would reexamine that issue whether it was needed or not.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, do you have further questions? What about comments then?
Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will start with saying that if we weren’t in the Open Space District but
we were only looking at the Site and Design and see how it blends in I think I would agree the
architect did a fine job of minimizing major changes, theextension, etc. seems to work well.
Th~ cmlv rnnlr~r i~no that I have is with th~ imperious snr~c~ issue because there ~ a ~,~
reason for that in the Open Space District. It is in our Comprehensive Plan, it has been in the
Zoning Code for as long as the Open Space District has been there and I think we need to do our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
best to respect that whether it is a five acre parcel or a one acre parcel or a ten acre parcel. If you
keep on expanding the amount of impervious space and you do that on ten one-acre parcels you
kind of defeat the purpose of having a limit. It looks like there is some room here to have no net
increase in the existing impervious space if the driveway could be made permeable. I would
suggest that we recommend that the applicant take this back and think about doing that and any
other further improvements to be able to get the addition that they want and see where you could
take back some of that impermeable space and make it permeable so that there is no net increase
in what was there when it was in the RE District. I think that would be the fairest thing to do. I
don’t know if the other Commissioners would agree with that approach but that is where I think
it would be fairest.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Cormnissioner Holman: Yes, I would agree with Bonnie that that’s the fairest approach. I also
as I mentioned earlier and as follow up to Bonnie’s comments about not increasing a non-
compliance I think it is incumbent upon the applicant to do just that, not increase the impervious
surface. I think the applicant is to be congratulated on working with the neighbors. I think that
their project is low profile. I think there are some really good things about the project.
Sometimes it is not very easy to be a Commissioner, this is kind of a hard one because they have
done a good job in so many regards. So I would concur with Connnissioner Packer and I would
also suggest that Staff take a look at tl~e storage shed. I have gotten different stories about what
the situation is with that and it does appear to be a brand new unit to me. I have gotten different
information about it so I would suggest that Staff take a look at that.
Chair Griffin: Do I have a motion? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Before a motion I had some additional comments. I concur with some of
the statements that have already been made. I think I would like.to put this in context. I agree
with my fellow Commissioners that the design has been thoughtful ~ind sensitive to neighbors
and that is one of the considerations. Two other considerations that are really even of greater
responsibility to the Cormnission are that this is a scenic corridor and it is adjacent to an Open
Space District. So the protection of the interests of the general public are even greater than those
of the immediate neighbors although all matter. So when we have a project that is existing
noncompliant and that is acceptable for something to be noncompliant and continue in that
manner but to have major changes to that are significant. I see problems notonly that the
application is using impervious surfaces where pervious ones could exist and Ithink that can be
addressed probably relatively easily. I think that we should have our Fire Department determine
what is the minimum driveway width that is necessary. I also have a concern with this
greenhouse. I am a tomato gardener as well and I appreciate that desire but that appears to be
quite an eyesore in the middle of the scenic corridor, visible from the scenic corridor and not a
permitted use. I think that needs to be addressed as well. I think from the scenic standpoint that
is probably as problematic as any of the other issues. Finally, we have heard about this garage.
We are talking about a 1,550 foot structure. That is one heck of a garage. I think that I would
like to see a garage that addresses the minimal needs of housing. If it is three cars then so be it
but you don’t need half that size garage for three cars. If we are going to allow variances in this
Open Space area then ! tb~nk we shou!d be !ook~g for what is minima! to meet the true needs of
the property owners. It is not really whatever they would like but it is a variance from what are
existing zoning requirements. We have to be scrupulous on what we are going to allow above
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
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
45
46
47
48
what is a permitted use. So I would have concerns with ali four of those and would like to have
this return to us with a proposal that does the best job possible of addressing those different
concerns.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have one other cormnent too which I think is good to put out there too.
I think Staff and this Commission have a responsibility too to be consistent in how we make
determinations about variances and HIEs and such. We have had discussion about this recently
because we have had some apparent inconsistencies. I think the action that we are about to take
tonight it seems like would be going towards spe~king to having a consistent determination in
regards to variances and HIEs. I think it is only reasonable and responsible of us to act in that
way. I think it also is only a reasonable expectation tliat the public should have of us.
Chair Griffin: Now I was seeing a motion percolating over here.
MOTION
¯ Vice-Chair Cassel: I was going to move the Staff Report with the following exceptions. That is
that the owner work with Staff to develop as much reasonable impervious surface as they can in
order to come back so they are not expanding the impervious surface on the site.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Now can I speak to it? This is a property located totally within the 200 foot
setback. So it has to have a variance. There is no way around it. The setbacks for the extra six
inches here and there again they have to be there there is nothing else they can do with that. The
choice of what to do with this impervious surface is their choice. So if they choose to put a large
garage on it it is not visible. I have been up there. I did drive up there and did go into the
driveway and back out. It is not going to be an obvious garage on that site. It may not be what I
would put on the site but that is not the issue. The issue is as long as itis not increasing the
impervious surface and you can’t see it from anywhere and it blends in, I think we have.a color
board over there with the colors they are going to use, then I think they have the right to do that.
I am concerned about the small building because you can see it from the street but it is a
preexisting building. It is not my understanding that we take down preexisting buildings that.are
40 years old. The owner can certainly consider that and would be wise to do that. The one
question I didn’t ask and can be asked later is the cloth cover I believe is 30 feet back from the
street, it is not pretty but again it is on the site, it is a gardening piece and I think it is allowed.
So I think that my biggest concern is the impervious surface. We need to keep this down to a
minimum. The owner can think about how they would like to best get that impervious surface
down.
Chair Griffin: Would the seconder like to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I second all of Phyllis’s comments as well as the motion. I am relying
on Staff to determine whether or not that shed building is preexisting as to a 40 year old shed or
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
45
46
47
48
whether it is a new shed. I have some concerns I share with Karen with regard to that shed butif
it is a preexisting building, if that is what Staff is determining, then I don’t think we can change
it. Ours is not the obligation to im, estigate or to have suspicions that is up to Staff to investigate
and determine for us and we rely on them to do that. I think that the property owner has the right
to build what he wishes to build within the confines of the plan he has set forward.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Phyllis, I have a question for you on your motion. Are you moving the
granting of the variances except for the one relating to the increase in impervious surface? The
reason I ask that is because if we ask the applicant to go back and rethink that it may come back
with a slightly different design that would change the details of the variance request by a foot
here or an inch there. I thought that we may want to make it subject to any changes in the
variance request when this comes back to us.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This doesn’t come back to us. I think it goes straight to City Council and
that was my motion in that I would presume that when they go to City Council my
recommendation is that that impervious surface comes down or there is a very good reason to
explain to City Council why it is not. We can do that, we can sent it to City Council without
making it go another step which is part of the issues of keeping things moving with a condition
that every possible alternative is looked at for bringing the impervious surface down. It can be
done in a number of different ways. That can be explored by Staff. They can choose a lot of
different ways of doing it, they can cut the building, they can cut the width of the driveway, they
can put impervious surface up near where the patio is, they can put impervious surface where it
is flat and asphalt where it isn’t. There are a nnmber of things that can be done. They can’t do it
tonight it takes time to think about such things. If-they absolutely can’t they will need to explain
that to City Council.
Commissioner Packer: Then I will support your motion now that it has been explained to me.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: One thing the Conznission has not commented on is the materials board
and inclusion of those specifics in the conditions of approval. So I am wondering if
Commissioners have any comments on that.
Vice,Chair Cassel: I can see them from here but probably they should be picked up so everyone
can take a look at that because that certainly should be. a condition. It always is.
Commissioner Bialson: I apologize I picked them up looked at them and didn’t pass them down
the line.
Chair Griffin: Karen, do you have any further comments on the motion?
Commissioner Holman: Only to say I not totally satisfied with the specificity of the motion so I
wi!! be voting against it.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Conamissioner Burt: I also am not satisfied that it is specific enough when we have had the
project on Los Trancos Road m~d I think we required it tocome back to us and we approved the
changes. I think that in this case we seem to be confusing this project doesn’t have any
development rights by right. This is all by variance and it should be a project if they are looking
for very significant variances then it should be carefully scrutinized and I think this is something
that goes beyond what I would feel comfortable with for all the reasons I Cited.before.
Chair Griffin: I won’t be supporting the motion either because of the reasons that have been
discussed here. It seems to me that on the bunker property we did insist on permeable building
materials for a rather tong and steep driveway. It seems to me that we could take a look at this
project again after the architect has had a chance to perhaps investigate that kind of driveway
material in more detail. The location of the gas tank seems to me awkward I am going to say. I
was hoping to see that hidden somewhat more adroitly than the way it is treated at the moment.
The width of the driveway is likewise something that needs to be worked on. I would be happy
to see this project some back to us after some changes have been addressed by the applicant.
Commissioner Packer: I have also been rethinking. I don’t tmow if it moves things along any
better to send it up to City Council when there are enough problems. We might as well have the
applicant work on it, come back to us with a project that maybe more of us could approve and
then send it up to City Council. It might end up being a smoother process. So given that I am
sorry Phyllis I will not support this motion.
Chair Griffin: Could we have a substitute motion then? It fails while counting noses. Do you
want to withdraw your motion, Commissioner?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would rather see you do asubstitute motion.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Cormnissioner Burt: I will take a stab at it. I would move that the Staff review alternatives with
the applicant first to truly minimize the use of impervious surfaces including consideration of the
scale of the garage addition, not a requirement but a reviev¢ with the applicant. Second that the
City Staff review with the Fire Department the minimal driveway width that is necessary. Third,
that the gas tank location and visibility be reconsidered. Fourth that the greenhouse be examined
as to whether it is a permissible structure in the location that it currently exists. I think that
covers all of my recommendations. Also to report back to us on whether the shed is a
permissible structure at its location.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
Chair Griffin: Second by Karen. Does the maker of the motion wish to speak any more on it?
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: No, I think that this gives guidance to Staff and the applicant on the sorts of
issues we would like to have addressed. It does not prescribe the outcome of reexamination of
these issues but I think clearly’the Commission would like to see significant progress in these
areas after Staff has reviewed whether each of these things are appropriate.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The only thing that I would add is ask for the maker of the motion to
accept a friendly amendment to be specific that the impermeable surface not be increased over
what currently exists.
Commissioner Burt: It would certainly be my hope that that would be the outcome. I don’t
know that I would want to send it back with that as a strict prescription. So I would prefer to
leave that open with a request to minimize it and we will examine the project as a whole when it
returns to us. That would be my preference.
Commissioner Holman: I am actually going.to withdraw my Second then because it looks like
based on the scope of the project it seems to me that that would be doable and I think that should
be the goal.
SECOND
Chair Griffin: I would like to second the motion. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Would the maker of the motion entertain an amendment whereby the
scale of the garage addition is not mentioned? I have a feeling that that is not within the purview
of Commission to go into. It is a question as to how the property owner wishes to layout his
home and his garage and while I can support the motion aside from mentioning the scale of the
garage addition I don’t want to have that sort of level of detail and intrusion of the property
owner.
Commissioner BUrt: Well, let staff correct me if I am mistaken but it is my understanding that
any construction within the 200 foot setback is within the purview of the Commission and
something that is appropriate for us to be considering. This isn’t a construction by fight when
there is that restriction. They have a preexisting condition that allows them to retain what they
have but any additional construction is within our purview fully. Can Staff comment on that?
Mr. Turner: That would be Correct.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that the question is we have a piece of property here that is
essen~cially all within the 200 feet and for us to design it for the property owner I think is
inappropriate. So that is what prompted my comment and I take your comments to be a no to my
request. Thank you.
Commissioner Burt: Yes and I am not attempting to design it. What I am requesting is that we
have a project return to us that has ma!.y tlne minima! impacts that wi!! meet the necessities of the
owner. In these sensitive areas we don’t give carte blanche for people to build whatever they
want there. So that is within our purview in my opiI~ion.
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
45
46
Commissioner Packer: I am going to agree with Annette. I don’t think we can define up’ here
what a necessity of an owner is. I think that really is getting into a level where we shouldn’t go.
So I am not going to support your motion. I would support a motion that simply sends this back
for redesign taking into consideration everything that we have talked about tonight and as a
minimum do the best they can not m increase the impervious surface from what it was, just keep
it simple like that and let it go fl’om there. That is the kind of motion I would support. When
your motion goes through its process I will make that motion.
MOTION FAILS (2-4-0-1, Commissioners Griffin and Burt for and Bell0mo absent)
Chair Griffin: Do you wish to comment on the motion? Karen? Pat? I am going to put this to a
vote. All those in favor of Pat’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) So it fails with
Commissioners Griffin and Burt being the only affirn~ative votes and Commissioner Bellomo
absent,
So now we are ready for another one.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will try it this time. Iwi11 move that we send this app.lication back to
the applicants to work on bring us back a new application with any additions that in the net do
not increase the impervious surface and they take into account the questions and concerns tt~at
have been raised by different Commissioners as to all the various structures that are existing and
being proposed. We will look at it all when it comes back and we will take into account that it is
in the 200 foot scenic setback.
SECOND
CommissionerHolman: I would be happy to second that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Question and clarification. So when you say it will take and consider all
the issues that have been brought forth by the Commissioners then that does not exclude
reexamination of the actual building construction?
Commissioner Packer: They may decide to reexamine it. That happens I suppose when you sit
down and look at something afresh. I expect there will be something somewhat different from
what we.are looking at tonight. That is why the specifics of the variances may come to us a little
bit differently, I don’t know. When the math is done if you make the driveway pervious it may
give you a little bit more room. We are saying whatever the impervious surface’is now they can
keep and within that envelope come back what they want to do with the property. It maycome
out Very differently and that is why I think I want my motion to be very general that way. The
goal is to respect the Open Space requirement of impervious surface.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Commissioner Butt: Now I need to have clarification because what I just heard you say I think
is something different than what I heard you say before. What I thought I just heard you say is
that whatever they wish to propose without increasing impelwious surface would be acceptable.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t know until we see it but that is the goal. The goal is they come
back, they may decide not to have a swirmr~ing pool, they may decide to move the greenhouse
there, they may decide to shift the orientation of the garage a little bit. A lot of things could
happen when they relook at this. Especially when you have removed that 2,400 square feet of
driveway and make that more permeable I don’t know how the math is going to work out. They
have a little bit more room to work with because we are saying keep it within the existing space.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure I am clear on the motion. So if those additional
comments that you had more recently made are not part of the motion then I am okay.
Commissioner Packer: They are not part of the motion they are just an explanation. I am
spealdng to the motion. The motion is simply go back, come back with a new proposal so long
as there is no net increase in impervious square footage.
Conm~issioner Burt: And the other part of what I had understood your motion to include was
that it was also going to be a reexamination based on other input that has been put forth by the
Commission tonight.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, that is part of it. They can take what they like from our comments
and include that.
Chair Griffin: Are we ready for the vote at this stage? We had a second from Karen. Karen do
you wish to speak on the motion?
Conm~issioner Holman: No, I will just exceed to my new best friend Bolmie’s comments.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bellomo absent)
Chair Griffini All in favor of Bonnie’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That carries
unanimously with Commissioner Bellomo absent.
That brings to an end item number two.
Can we take a three-minute break here? We have put the timer on. It is 20 minutes to 11:00. I
am sure everyone is aware of that.
Good evening. We are now ready to deal with item number four which apparently there is not a
public hearing required onthis item. This is more of an internal nature. Would Staff please
introduce this item, which involves a Plam~ing and Transportation Conmaission initiating
changes to the Zoning Ordinance in order to address issues raised in the report by the City
Auditor regarding permit processes and appeals.
Attachment E
Plam~ing and Transpol-tation Commission
City of Palo Alto
December 1, 2003
Re:Ditzel Residence
4010 Page Mill Rd
The Plamaing and Transportation Commission,
We have addressed the concerns of the commission raised on November 12,. 2003. The
following steps have been taken.
The driveway will. be changed from asphalt to a permeable material approved by the
planning department. The driveway material will be SF-RIMA by basalite or similar
material.
The owner agrees to remove the existing storage shed after the completion of
construction.
The fire department has requested that the driveway be a minimum of 16’-0" wide. A
letter from the fire protection plan checker is attached.
Additional screening wiI1 be provided in front of the propane tank. 3 pine trees will be
planted.
S.i~cerely
i,"" ~ i i~
C ath erine
Architect
Additional information
Existing lot coverage and impervious surfaces
Existing lot coverage
Existing house coverage
Tool shed
Hot tub deck (nic water)
Existing Impervious surface
Emry walkway and stoop
Driveway
Proposed lot coverage and impervious surfaces
Proposed lot coverage
Existing house
Deck to be removed
Existing hot tub deck (nic water)
Upper addition coverage
Garage addition
Garage/deck overhang
Covered Patio/Entry
Proposed Impervious surface
Pool Surround (nic water)
Front Stair
Propane Talfl( pad
. Driveway
2730 s.f.
100 s.f.
471 s.f.
263 s.f.
2374 s.f.
2730 s.f
(239 s.f.)
471 s:f.
174 s.f.
1440 s.f.
65 s.f.
329 s.£
480 s.f.
227 s.f
40 s.f.
140 s.f.
3301 s.f.
2637 s,fi
4970 sift
887 s.f.
5938 sf
Total coverage and impervious surface 5857 s.f.
Percentage coverage and impervious 5857 s.f./43560 s.f. 13.5 %
Floor area
Existing House
Upper floor
Lower floor
2356 s.f.
1077 s.f.
Addition
Bed/Bath
Living room
Garage
174 s.f.
63 s.f.
1440 s.f.
1677 s.f.
Total proposed floor area 5110 s.f.
Attachment F
Fire Prevention Bureau
P,O. Box 102,~0
Palo AltO, CA 94391
Fax (650) 327-6g51
Phone (650)329-2194
To; Cartmell/Tarn Architects I=r~m; Gordon F, Simpki~son
Fax: (650) 949-4~ 66 Paltes: 1
Phone:I~te: 11/1912003
Re: 4010 Page Mill Road
[~ Urgent !-] For Review I’] Piease Gomment ~Please Reply t’]Please Recycle
Dear Cartmell/Tam Architects:
-l-his message is to confirm that the Palo AIte Fire Dept, will require the driveway to be a minimum
foot width for the proposed proiect at the above referenced site.
The configuration is such that a narrower width would significantly impede our ability to access
property in all anticipated emergency conditions.
~pkinson ’~
F)re Protection Plan Checker
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
45
46
47
48
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
4010 Page Mill Road*: Application for a Site and Design Review to allow a 1,677square
foot addition to an existing single family residence, including a request for the following
variances: a 29’6" side yard setback where a 30’ setback is required, a 46’ front yard
setback where a 200’setback is required, and a total lot coverage of 13.5%, where 3.5%
is normally the maximum allowed. Zone District: Open Space (OS). Environmental
Assessment: a Negative Declaration has been prepared for publie review and comment.
File Nos: 03-D-l O, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-15. SR Weblink:
http://www.eit~fpa~alt~.~rg/eitvagenda/publish/planning-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/282 7.pdf
Mr. Turner: Thank you Chair Griffin and Commissioners. This project before you is for a Site
and Design Review for an addition in the Open Space District. This item was originally heard on
November 12, 2003 and during that meeting the Planning and Transportation Commission voted
to continue the project to a date uncertain. We were able to schedule and agendize it for this
evening.
Some of the things the Commission wanted Staff and the applicant to consider was number one
and most importantly that the impervious area on the site should be reduced and that there were
different ways on how that could be accomplished, that the status of the storage shed that had
been rebuilt be determined, number three that the greenhouse issue and how it is visible should
also be presented and the location of the propane tank should be examined and consider
landscaping and screening that would mitigate the views on that. The applicant has responded
and a discussion of the response is contained in the Staff Report. Staff has also added additional
conditions of approval or recommended conditions of approval to the project. Those are located
in the administrative record, which is Attachment B of the Staff Report and it is the third page of
your package. Those additional conditions are located in Section 8 starting on page six and they
have to deal with the location of the propane tank and how the fencing would be constructed and
designed so that it minimizes views. It considers the greenhouse as a temporary structure and
therefore would not count as impervious surface. It talks about the Storage shed and how the
applicant has indicated that they property owner would remove that storage shed prior to the
building permit being filed. Through those efforts the amount of impervious surface on the site
has reduced to where the previous request was for impervious surfaces of about 20.7% of the site
area. They are now requesting a 13.5% impervious surface area so they still will need a variance
for that amount of impervious surface however that is significantly less than the previous
proposal brought forward to you. I believe that concludes the Staff Report. The applicant is here
to make a presentation and answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. This item is a quasi-judicial item and if Commissioners would like to
make any disclosures now is the appropriate time. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I drove to the site and drove up the driveway but did not have any contact
with anyone.
Commissioner Holman: I visited the site when this came to us previously.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2 Commissioner Packer: My visit was earlier also, the same as Pat’s drove up the driveway.
3
4 Vice-Chair Cassel: I drove up there today and as requested knocked on the door, said hello.
5
6 Chair Griffin: Would the Commissioners like to ask Staff questions before we go to the
applicant? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: We had some discussion at our previous hearing and in one of our other
recent hearings on the purview of the Planning Commission regarding Site and Design Review
and then there was also discussion at our last hearing on what are the property rights of the
owner here. I would like to ask perhaps the City Attorney if he would comment on and give us
some enlightenment on both of those issues before we go further in our discussions. What
inherent rights to develop do they have? Then if you could do a brief review or Staff could do a
brief review of what is the purview of the Commission on a Site and Design Review?
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to Cit?, Attorneys: Just a couple of preliminary things.
First of all the right to develop in California is not a right it is a privilege. Basically when we get
an application and the applicant is entitled to notice and a fair hearing, which I think in this case
clearly, he has been given. As far as.the jurisdiction of the Commission over Site and Design
applications the Municipal Code does set forth what your tasks are when you are looking at a
Site and Design application. It basically sets forth four things that you are to look at. First of all
you are to look at the application and determine what measures are needed to ensure construction
operation of the use in a mannerthat will be harmonious and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. That is the frrst finding that you have to make. The
second one is you need to make sure, you need to take measures to ensure the desirability of
investment or the conduct of business, research or educational activities or other authorized
occupations in the same or adjacent areas. That is the second one. The third one is to ensure that
sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. Then finally
you need to ensure that the use will be in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
So basically you are looking at the application with those four findings in mind. So that is
basically your scope.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: In addition to that if a site is put up prior to a change in the zone, I would
have used ’the right’ but maybe that is the wrong term, to for instance be too close to the setback
to continue that unless there is some other change?
Mr. Soder~ren: If they do have a preexisting use and the zoning is changed they are considered
an existing nonconforming use. Again they don’t have the right to expand that use or modify
that use only under certain circumstances are they allowed to do those things in the Zoning
Ordinance. It sets forth standards for nonconforming uses.
Chair Griffin: If there are no other questions then can we have the applicant come forward?
You have 15 minutes for a presentation and could you introduce yourself please?
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
45
46
47
48
Ms. Kathy Cartmell, Cartmell/Tam Architects: I will be speaking to introduce this project along
with my partner Tony Tam and the owner David Ditzel. This was heard on November 12th as
you heard and we were continued with a motion by Commissioner Packer. We did not request
the presence of our neighbors this time but I think you all know that we had good support from
our neighbors. I see one neighbor who did come of his own accord. That was very nice of you.
I will refer you to the meeting minutes if you have questions about the support of our neighbors.
The motion which Commissioner Packer culminated the hearing on November the 12 with read,
"I will move that we send this application back to the applicants to work on and bring us back a
new application with any additions that in the net do not increase the impervious surface and that
they take into account the questions and concerns that have been raised by different
Cormnissioners as to all the various structures that are existing and being proposed. We will
look at it all when it comes back and we will take into account that it is inside the 200 foot scenic
setback." I would like to refresh Commissioner’s memories about this project.
It is in the Open Space District. It is a one-acre parcel with an existing two level house on it that
was built around 1967. It is serviced by an asphalt.driveway..There are a few accessory
structures, which include a hot tub area, a shed and a greenhouse. The property is bounded to the
north and the east by Page Mill Road. It is bounded on the west by Mid Peninsula Open Space
District and to the south is a single-family residence of 5,600 square feet. The property does
slope to the north. The top half of the property where the residence is was developed in the
1960s and the lower half remains native woodland.
Briefly, the project that we have proposed includes a one-story garage and storage area addition
serviced by a new driveway configuration. We are also adding a four-foot.strip to the back of
the house to enlarge the ba(k rooms. Also we are asking for a covered patio in the rear and an
in-ground pool in the rear yard. We are changing the covered entry and the steps that go up to
that entry area. When we designed this project we took into account a few different criteria
including the client’s program, also the severe weather in that area which includes very high
winds and horizontal rain and very close to the area where the proposed addition is is a very
large tree that we decided to work around.
We also considered Palo Alto’s Open Space criteria. Number one, which is kind of repeated
throughout the Open Space criteria, is not to be visually intrusive either to the public roadway or
the public parklands or to the neighbors. We did this siting the project, which is a one-story
addition, and we sited so that existing mature vegetation helps hide it from view. We also used
the one story addition to step down the hill and follow the terrain as the Open Space criteria
r~quests, mimicking the topography, We did our best to preserve the existing trees and native
landscape and we minimized the cut and fill by placing the new addition on an existing graded
area.
The items that we looked at to address the Commissioners’ concerns included looking into the
driveway width at the request of the Commissioners. We talked to the Fire Department about the
minimum requested width and there is a letter enclosed with the application and the Fire
Department did request a 16-foot wide driveway at this location. We also changed the asphalt
driveway to a pervious material, which was selected from some of the choices given to us by the
Planning Staff. The material selected is SF Rema by Basalite. In doing that we do have a
negative net gain of a pervious surface and building coverage.
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
45
46
47
One of the other items that was of concern of some of the Commissioners was the shed. Dave
will talk about the shed a little bit but in short the owner has agreed to remove the shed prior to
the completion of construction.
Another item of concern was the location of the propane tanlc and it was located where it was for
ease of delivery of the propane and the truck that delivers it which is rather large. But we have
provided additional screening of this tank in the way of landscaping and a fence.
Another item is the cloth greenhouse. Now the cloth greenhouse is an agricultural use and
agricultural uses are permitted in this area. We did, after the November 12th meeting, meet with.
the Planning Staff and a building official¯ The building official said the cloth greenhouse was
not a building and not a structure and that it was a tent and it was not in his jurisdiction¯ So we
were surprised to see it included in conditions of approval because we had left that meeting
understanding that it had been removed from the application all together and was not be
reviewed¯ So we would actually like to see that removed from the conditions of approval
because of the broad constraints placed on it such as that it needs to be a certain color and that it
can only be used for a certain period of time at a time.
Another item on the conditions of approval that I would like to see removed has to do with Item
Number 10 in which they state the trees to be protected and in that list they include a six inch
¯ eucalyptus,, a six inch olive and a ten inch olive. These are neither native trees nor significant
¯ trees and I really think that it should be left to the owner whether he would like to keep those
trees and protect them during construction to have later.
I am going to turn the mike over to Tony.
Mr. Tony Tam, Cartmell/Tam Architects: Hi, I am the partner of Kathy Cartmell. Thank you
Mr. Chair. I am here available to answer any design questions that you might have pertaining to
this project. In general comment what we tried to do and I will echo Kathy’s statement is that
realizing the purpose for Open Space and minimizing impact from the public right-of-way
respecting the native vegetation and topography we feel that in this addition design that we
brought forth we were very diligent in doing everything that we believe an architect doing the
right thing could do. Keeping the project as low profile as possible to minimize visual impact.
There was a consideration to not disrupt any more undisturbed areas on the site. We did that by
placing the addition on the existing driveway apron. We did not disturb any of the significant
native plants. Kathy mentioned, and I concur with her, that man-made man-designed and
delivered landscaping such as a six inch eucalyptus, six inch olive that should be left to the
discretion of the owner as how one would like to change that man-made environment rather, than
going into the natura! environment. It would be a different story if one were to say that I am
going to take down a six-inch native oak tree. So we worked very hard in bringing back this
project, addressing all the comments that the Planning Commission has and I hope that you
approve this project. Thank you.
Mr. David Ditzel, Applicant, 4010 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto: Hi I own the house and I am here
to answer any additional questions. I have owned the house for over 17 years. I bought the
house where I did in the Open Space District because I could buy enough space, it was zoned for
1
2
3
4,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
agricultural use and I hoped by saving up my money over 15 years I could hope to improve it
some day. The house has had very few improvements since its inception. It is in need ofrepairs.
In providing some of that history I wanted to go into the history of the shed that was asked about
last time by the Commission. Perhaps it would be easiest if I showed you a photo. After the
house construction in 1967 the property housed two horses. When I bought the property the
fence for the horses was in a somewhat dilapidated condition. I have taken down the fence in
order to create a better visual effect from Page Mill Road. It wasn’t really adding anything there.
Over the last several years I have been trying to add on to the house, provide a little more storage
space, I have been using the shed on the outside. It has been falling apart and was visually an
eyesore. So I undertook to replace that not knowing how long this project would take. To let
you know also, this project has been ongoing for over three years in planning. This is the second
set of architects I have hired. The first set after going through the conditions found that the .terms
of the Open Space District were just basically too difficult for them to handle. So I hired a set of
architects who are more familiar with the Open Space District. Living in the area I am very, very
conscious of the Open Space issues and tried to work very hard to comply. I have been here
supporting several of my neighbors who have done construction, which has been approved here
for projects much larger than my own. I have actually been through and watched and listened to
a tot of the issues that you have been concerned about. We tried very hard and working with my
atchitects here to pay attention to those issues.
Getting back to the exact history and disposition of the shed. The shed was built approximately
in !970. I would like to bring forward to you ifI could a photograph so that you can see that
what I have done is taken a preexisting structure and according to the Open Space rules as best as
I understood them, and a preexisting structure at the time therules were changed in the zoning is
still a legal structure, however the structure was an eyesore. I simply chose to retrofit a building
of the same size, shape and same location believing that that was an appropriate thing to
That is roughly the history. I replaced that building in the spring in terms of restructuring it. As
you can see from the photos it is roughly the same size and shape as the horse barn that was there
since the 1970s. That is the particular disposition of that building. As some of you have noted it
looked like a new structure, yes that is true, it has been repaired. As you can see clearly from the
photos the old structure there, which I kept for my records and I am glad I did for you tosee, that
structure has had a very long legacy. I would be happy to answer any further questions of the
Commission. We have tried to work very hard here to meet all of the requests you had made. I
am actually glad to say that the issue that was of most concern surprised us a little, the
impervious area, has been reduced actually with this project rather than increased. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Mr. Ditzel, I think we will have a number of questions for you so just hang on
please.
Commissioner Burt: One of my greatest concerns now that I have visited the site is this
greenhouse that is highly visible from Page Mill and the view corridor. Is it currently covered
throughout the year or is it uncovered for some portion?
Mr. Ditzel: It is a temporary structure. It has gone up and down over the years with different
¯ structures as I have kind of learned what the gowing conditions are like. It turns out that this at
a high enough elevation that you actually can’t grow a number of the type of crops you would
like to grow without a little bit of covering. There is a lot of black body radiation at night, things
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
45
46
47
48
1 get very cold. It is use primarily during what I would ca!l the growing season. I would point out
2 that actually in the document you have it is slightly incorrect as stated there that it is used for
3 exactly six months of the year. That is not quite correct. I really wish you would replace that
4 sentiment with the term ’growing season.’ It is used during the growing season. Quite often I
5 will grow tomatoes and they will be planted over the summer and come around and depending
6 on the year they will be picked through September or sometimes through October and
November.
Commissioner Burr: I notice that the covering is still there. So how is it that it only is covered
during the growing season?
Mr. Ditzel: It is only because of your request that I would consider to take itdown. It is an
excessive amount of use on my part. It would come down if there were particular years I didn’t
want to use it but if I intend to use it the following season I might leave it up. I figured it was my
property and my right to do so. If you are going to impose the requirement that I must take it
down in order to get this approval well, so be it. I would like to leave it up during the growing
season and use it. Thearea is zoned for agricultural use and I tNnk it is a requirement for that
kind of agriculture.
Chair Griffin: Bolmie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up on the greenhouse. This is really a question for the
attorney. We are reviewing an addition to an existing building and the greenhouse has been
there and it is not being changed. Is that part of our purview in the Site and Design Review?
Does that mean everything that is on the site even though it has been there it has to be considered
and we have authority to play around with those things?
Mr. Sodergren: I think the nature of Site and Design RevieWyou are looking at the site and how
the buildings interrelate and how the structures interrelate. So I do think it is within your
purview under that theory that you are looking at how the new addition fits on the property in
relationship to the other buildings and structures around it.
Commissioner Packer: But is this a structure? Is the greenhouse a structure?
Mr. Soder~ren: I have to look at that.
Mr. Ditzel: Can we comment on that? We were given an opinion on that.
Ms. Cm~tmell: We received an opinlon from the building official. Who was it?
Chair Griffin: Why don’t you just hang on for a second folks? Let me give Staff an oppommity
to respond to that. I think that there is a question as to what constitutes a temporary building,
etc., etc.
Mr. Turner: I will go ahead and start off. We did have a discussion with Mike [Bared] the
Assistant Building Official. There is no set definition for a temporary structure. According to
the description of how this building was being used, the nature of constructioli, how it is sited on
the land it appeared to the Assistant Building Official that this was a temporary structure and
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
45
46
47
48
would classify it as so, therefore it would not be subject to the building codes. It would not be
subject to the impervious surface calculation through zoning and Staff is fine with that definition
of that particular greenhouse structure. It is when and I think the concern of the Assistant
Building Official was when that building starts to become less loo ~king like a temporary structure
and more like a permanent structure. One of the characteristics he used was how long is it
actually installed. How long is it up? In other cases the Building Division has found that if a
structure is permanently installed it is in fact a structure. A similar case would be sometimes
down here in the flatlands some folks i~ut up a temporary canopy for their cars and leave that up
on a fulltime basis. The Building Division has said that those are notin fact temporary structures
and that those have to meet the same regulations and codes as a permanent structure would. The
Building Division doesn’t have a set time period on when a structure is temporary and then
therefore going to permanent. They looked to see how the building is being used, how it is
constructed, how long it is being used to make that determination on a temporary structure. In
this case, with the description from the applicant the Building Division found it satisfactory to
call it a temporary structure and Planning Staff would agree with that assessment.
Chair Griffin: Based on the six,month timeframe ~f utilization, is that correct?
Mr. Turner: Just based upon the temporary nature of it. It is not’so much assessing a specific
tirneframe for that structure but hearing from the applicant that it is used from what I heard as
Staff as a six month time period. Having that presented to the Assistant Building Official it was
in his mind that that was more of a temporary structure rather than a permanent structure.
Chair Griffin: And it is to the applicant’s advantage to have this classified as a temporary
structure as opposed to permanent because being temporary he doesn’t have to have perimeter
foundations or be subjected to the impervious calculation on the property.
Mr. Turner: The benefits would be just that. It would be that in this particular case it would not
be counted toward impervious surfaces, it would not be subject to the Building Code, which may
require a specific type of construction or a foundation or other types.of things that a more
permanent structure would have.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am a little bit confused about what the difference is between, this has
nothing to do with whether it is used six months or not as far as the determination of it being a
temporary structure, I am a little bit confused about why a canopied parking place is considered
that it has to be counted as lot coverage and such but this doesn’t. Maybe this is something for
the Zoning Ordinance Update when we look at Open Space revisions but given the location of
this particular structure, and I understand it has been there for a good while, but given the
location of this particular structure and the size of it if we have no purview over controlling that
kind of structure I think this is something that we ought to look at definitely under the ZOU.
Mr. Turner: I think that you do and Staff would concur with you. In fact the latest Staff Report
and record of!and use action in your Staff Report does contain a condition regarding for example
the color of the fabric or plastic that is there that would be more compatible with the immediate
environment. There was a requirement for a length of time, a six-month length of time. Now the
Planning Commission may want to recommend that six months is not appropriate that it should
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-1
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
45
46
47
48
be another length of time or have some other accommodation to allow that use to continue to
happen. What we want to try to stay away from again is, we want to keep it as a temporary
structure, I think that is how everybody wants to see it and I think that is an acceptable way to
see it. But we have io be careful not to move in the direction where it is more of a permanent
structure and then therefore would be subject to all the rules and regulations that Building and
Planning have for permanent structures.
Commissioner Holman: I guess where I was headed with that was if this is the determination for
this structure and I certainly read the Staff Report about the color of the material and the canvas
and that sort of thing, but this being the determination for this I could just see that there could be
a proliferation of this ldnd oftemp0rary structure on other parcels. So I am saying that maybe it
is a ZOU issue.
Chair Griffin: Did you want a response to that from Staff? No, not necessarily. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a follow on on the greenhouse issue. If the Staff’s input from Building
Division had been an understanding that it was a temporary structure based upon certain input
we just heard some testimony from the .applicant that he would be willing in the future to restrict
it to growing seasons but my understanding was that wasn’t the historic practice. Given that it is
up throughout thig winter does itstill follow in Staff’s understanding that this has been
historically only a temporary structure or is it that we are saying that this would be a new
condition that it would only be a temporary structure in the future?
Mr. Turner: Originally Staff saw it not as a temporary structure bt~t more as a permanent
structure. Our first submittal and Staff Report to you included that greenhouse structure as part
of the impervious area because it was a structure that was on the site. Therefore from what we
had gathered a more of a permanent basis. We are very willing to work with the Building
Division to find a classification and see if a temporary structure that is kept up during the
growing season without specific timeframe associated with that, if that still can be classified as a
temporary structure then I think Planning Staff would be willing to work with that tokeep it as a
temporary structure. If you look at the structure it doesn’t have a foundation. It is constructed of
a removable, collapsible metal tube structure with.cloth over the top of it acting just like a
greenhouse that can easily be put up and taken down. We would be willing to work to maintain
that as a temporary structure.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think the real issue here is that this is a white tent in the visual screen and
what we need to do is find some way that we can work with the applicant so that he can have this
greenhouse effect without having this white structure staring you inthe face as you come down
the street.
Mr. Ditzel: If it was hidden by view by some shrubs or other issues or ifI would investigate
alternate colors. Tell me what colors you like. I would like to comply.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I hear you and this isn’t getting us there. What we need to do I think is
condition this to provide some screening so that it can’t be seen from the street and a color in
which it will blend in with the surroundings." Would work, Pat?
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
132
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: I think so. Per the Comprehensive Plan requirements it isvisually intrusive
from that roadway.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So if we can get out the visually intrusive thing and he can still have his
greenhouse we have made a compromise.
Commissioner Burt: That’s right. The potential ways that might be addressed might be
screening, materials, location and size. It is a big greenhouse and it is close to the road.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So there are a number of ways it could be done but it needs to be screened in
such a way that it is not visible.
Mr. Ditzel: Screening would be an easy thing to do.
.Vice-Chair Cassel: Could we condition it that way? Okay.
Chair Griffin: Now do we have more questions for Mr. Ditzel? As long as we are on a roll here
with this greenhouse business I am wondering how one goes about enforcing a six-month or a
growing season term. We get into the nitty-gritty of all of this thing. Is that a reasonable sort of
a thing to pursue at all from a code enforcement standpoint?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: There really are a couple of options. Code
enforcement typically is done on a complaint basis. We would receive a complaint from either a
neighbor or a concerned party and then we would investigate it. If there was some concern that
the tent was up or the greenhouse, excuse me, was up for too long a period of time. The other
way is if you write in a specific condition that says that the greenhouse may be in place for ’x’
len~h of time or for a growing season then we wil!i go out on an annual basis and check that
through condition compliance. So if you write in a condition specifically we will then have our
code enforcement officers go out and check it on an annual basis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The other comment to that is that we can’t see and it may not make a
difference.
Mr. Ditzel: I would hope that my volunteering to work on the scenic corridor and place some
shrubs or other issues to hide that, I didn’t realize it was such an issue, that that would obviate
the need for a six-month clock ticking this off. It is not an easy thing to bring things up and
down. There are many other considerations here for the growing season. I am more than willing
to work with you to find a solution once I understand what your issue is. I was not aware you
had such an issue with the visibility from the road. That can be easily addressed and would be
happy to include that.
Chair Griffin: We will try to clarify that for you.
Mr. Ditzel: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I am going to ask a question on the propane tank. As I look at the plans here you
have them drawn in such a way that they are obscured by three new pine trees that will be put in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
and that is part of the conditions of approval.. Also there is fence drawn in and the fence appears,
now maybe I am not reading your plans properly, but it appears that the fence would hide both
ends but the broadside view of the tank is still exposed to Page Mill Road. Could you perhaps
help me with that?
Mr. Tam: Yes. In placement oft_he propane tank there are several concerns that we had mainly
the regular serviceability of the tank. Big trucks come up the driveway and they drag this big
hose to fill the tank. So the location of it and how easy it is for them to go move back and forth
with the big truck is one issue. The other issue is that I don’t if you guys remember maybe five
or ten.years ago when we heard a lot about explosions of propane tanks up in the Tahoe area
when the weather freezes just about. The reason why we placed it away from the house is the
concern. We do get snow up there regularly once every few years. So it does freeze up there
quite a lot. Our hope is to move it away from the house as much as possible so that if there is
any hazard with the propane tank it won’t harm the house.
Chair Griffin: Mr. Tam the focus of my question.though was it seemed that the broadside view
of the tank was exposed to the road.
Mr. Tam: Yes, I appreciate that. The answer is that the natural redwood fence and gate that we
intend to surround the tank with you will not see the tank’at all.
Chair Griffin: So it surrounds the complete perimeter. In other words it is not exposed.
Mr. Tam: Not it is not.
Chair Griffin: Great, that is terrific. Commissioners have any other questions of the applicant?
I think that then is all we have for you. Thank you very much. If we could bring the discussion
back up here to the desk. You have a question of Staff, Phyllis?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Yes. The applicant commented on preserving some olive trees and
eucalyptus trees. I don’t know where that is in here but is that typical that we preserve those
trees if they are that size?
Mr. Turner: The trees that are indicated on the plans were indicated to remain. They weren’t
shown to be removed. The Planning Division Arborist in his assessmen} of the application and
the trees has standard tree protection measures that he placed not only on protected trees in
properties in the Open Space but really all trees in the Open Space. So those standard conditions
apply to the trees that are within the vicinity of the construction area.
Commissioner Packer: So for clarification for the applicant the protection means not that you
can never remove the trees but that you just protect them during the time of construction?
Mr. Turner: That is correct. The trees may be removed by the applicant as needed. They are not
protected trees, they .are not redwoods or the oaks that the City protects.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Commissioner Burt: I realize I do have one other question for the applicant. On page seven of
our original Staff Report, the November 12th Report, one of the conditions for Open Space
criteria within the Comprehensive Plan is that buildings should use natural materials and earth
tone or subdued colors. The proposal as I understood it is for the new garage structure to use
stucco inconsistent with the other building materials but I wanted to understand what the
architect’s reasons were for not being able to comply with this Comp Plan requirement.
Mr. Tam: The reason for stucco when the wood siding is not used in thishouse is several fold.
One is that not the whole house is being redone or remodeled so therefore the fear of doing an
architecture where you have half of the building done and by the time you finish you have half a
building that is clearly a new structure and the other half being a separate structure. That is one
of the things that we try to avoid. So using the materials that are already in existence and
combining it with the materia! palette that we could use is the desirability is to combine the two
so that when it is finished it doesn’t look like this is the part that we added and this is the part
that was existing. So that is one reason. The other reason is that throughout up and Page Mill
Road on some of the newer homes that are being built stucco is one of the materials of choice by
homeowners. We are not doing anything special on this project. The color that we chose is very
different from the colors that other applicants have brought forth. We are using earth tone
co!ors. The front that I would say 85% of it is new is redwood siding.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to clarify for you most of Page Mill Road is development
in Los Altos and we have our Comprehensive Plan requirements. This is one of the conditions of
approval. So that is why it is of particular concern there. Thank you.
Mr. Tam: Do we still have a color board available for this meeting, Steven?
Mr. Turner: We do have a color board. It is not present here but I can get that really quick.
Mr. Tam: Please let us.
Mr. Ditzel: I will also note that for the house which is the only section really, which will.be
visible from the road from the driveway the other is shielded, does fit that. Around the side
where you would have the stucco piece is the lengthwise long facing which faces down into a
grove of natural oak trees. Although technically it faces a road it is down the hill and really very,
very difficult to see any of the house from there. From a visibility standpoint the front with the
earth tones, the redwood was meant to be done to blend in very much to the code. I think the
sides that you are talking about for the stucco really are not visible from the roadway.
Commissioner Burr: Just so that you understand my concern the other Comprehensive Plan
element for the open space natural environment is item number one is that it .shall not be visually
intrusive from not only public roadways but public parMands. Your property I believe is across
the canyon, a good distance, but still visible from public open space areas. So that is the reason
for my concerns.
Mr. Ditzel: Yes, and in fact the specific design of the house and reason it is a deck and not
another structure is because when you do walk on that land and in fact my wife and I hike that
nearly every day it is such that you will not be able to see that. You will look and you look
directly above and you would be looking above the deck because the house is at a lower level.
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
45
46
47
48
So in addition to the road, I would like to add, it should not be visible from the public park area
on the backside.
Commissioner Burr: Could you clarify which open space areas you are referring to because
there are several open spaces? The Los Trancos there and then there is across the valley from
you, which are the other open space areas that I was referring to. Are you meaning from the Los
Trancos area that is partially below you?
Mr. Ditzel: Anything behind the house. We are touched by Los Trancos onthe back and there is
one immediate hill then you fall down into Portola Valley over that. So from perhaps ten miles
away with a telescope if you looked there is only one particular place on a hill nearby and I
believe from there as you look at the house you would not be able to see the new structure nor
the new stucco wall. It would be below the eye view of the property.
Mr. Tam: Could I add something? We did produce a photo album if you will of the line of sight
on this project. Steven has copies of that visual photo.
Commissioner Burr: Steve, I don’t want you to have to run upstairs but do happen to have
copies of the line of sight photos? That is very helpful. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any other discussion here on the desk? Annette, nothing from you?
Bonnie? Phyllis? I am passing this color board on down. If there are no other comments then
are we ready to hear a motion?
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: You can make a comment after I make a motion I guess. I will make a
motion so support the Staff recommendation with a change in language on the conditions relating
to the temporary greenhouse. It is on page seven at the top. It should note that the structure may
be covered bY cloth, plastic or fabric having a color that blends into the surrounding natural
environment. Strike the next sentence where it says greenhouse shall be disassembled and stored
at least six months of the year. In place of that write greenhouse shall be screened from visibility
from Page Mill Road. So we have both the color and the screening in place.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Chair Griffin: Do you wish to speak to your motion? You are striking out this last sentence
where it talks about you disassemble the temporary structure. You are making it into a
permanent structure.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No, I am not malting it a permanent structure. He can still take it up and
down but the Building Department has determined that this is temporary. We are going to have a
very difficult time monitoring it although we can monitor it." We can spend the time to do that.
We can go up and check twice a year, put two dates on it, and make sure it is up and down if we
wish to do that. But I think the most important factor is that we don’t want to see it. I think it is
important that we don’t see it any of the year so I would rather see us put that into the condition
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
45
46
47
48
and have that in place and allow the owner to use the agricultural use on this site. This is a one-
acre site. It was a preexisting one-acre site. So we are making exceptions and compromises in
trying to meet our overall total goals. I think it is keeping the visibility low profile that is our
major goal here and keeping the impervious coverage down. Basically I think they tried very
hard to meet what we asked of them last.time and that was to get this impervious surface
coverage down, which they have done and keep it down to same level it is now. It would be
difficult to build anything, you could do it but it would be very hard because of the slopes, to
build something in at 3.5%, which is what is expected of a ten-acre site. They have kept that
impervious surface to the level in fact below what they currently have. Their building pad is
very limited by the slope of the site.
Chair Griffin: Does the seconder wish to comment on the motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with everything Phyllis has said. I want us to be careful with our
demands upon the resources of both the Building and Planning Departments and I don’t think
having someone go out there to have this disassembled and reassembled every six months and
assure that is not going with the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish here. The spirit is to
try to preserver the view corridors. I too agree with Phyllis that is what we are looking for and
we should keep that in mind as our overriding concern.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, do you have any comments?
Commissioner Packer: I just want to say, even though I was out of the room I think I understand
what the motion was and I do support it. I think the applicant has done a great job going back
and addressing the concerns that we raised when we heard this first. This is a difficult site in that
it was built on before we had the ten-acre requirement for Operr Space and we have to
understand that. We have to use a little common sense in looking at additions to these
preexisting homes so that people who live there can do what other people do when they remodel
their homes in a reasonable way. I applaud the applicant for doing the best to maintain the
integrity of the sense of the Open Space .District given the situation that they were faced with.
So I will support the motion.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: First I would just like to comment on one point that Phyllis made that it is a
preexisting site and with that their preexisting development is grandfathered in and that is not
open to question. What is open to question is whether a structure such as the greenhouse that
was not preexisting, it was added, should be allowed to continue and if so in what form. That
greenhouse, the Building Department had determined it to be a temporary structure my
understanding is partly on the basis of it only being covered on a temporary basis. If we remove
that contingency I am not sure that it is any longer a temporary structure. If that is the case then
it is part of the impervious surface area. I am sorry, Bonnie were you trying to speak?
Commissioner Packer: I understood there was no foundation.
Commissioner Burt: Foundation, I am not sure is a requirement for it being viewed as a
permanent structure nor impervious. If it is up when the rainfall falls and the ground does not
absorb the water that is the essential element of why we control pervious and inapervious surface
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
areas. So that remains a concern of mine. I am not sure that simpty putting some bushes up on
what is a quite large greenhouse, very close proximity to Page Mill is adequate. I think the
structure is too large, improperly located and we need to do more. When you drive up Page Mill
there that thing just leaps up like a sore thumb. The screening would help but it is in that public
scenic right-of-way. We have that in our Comprehensive Plan for a reason. It seems like we are
just ignoring that Comprehensive Plan element. The plan also says the development is not to be
visually intrusive from either the roadway or public parklands. That is real clear there. So I
think we need to do more on reducing,significantly reducing, the impact of that greenhouse.
When you drive by there you don’t see much of the house itself. You see that greenhouse and
the shed. Those are the things that don’t belong. They are not supposed to be in that corridor.
There is not development by right here.
Commissioner Burt: Pat, do you have a suggestion for what we should do about that?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, I will in a moment, thank you. If we are going to approve a large
addition to the house then we should correct other aspects that have been built here that are
inappropriate.
So I would like to see this greenhouse either be removed or relocated and if it is relocated
reduced in size and have the other conditions that have been put on there. It should be screened
with natural vegetation and it should be not a permanent structure and it should be’required that
it be only as Staff said, less than six months out of the year.
Chair Griffin: Do you wish to eventually work on a substitute motion and I can leave you there
to work on that for a moment7 There is no rush and I can have Karen make her comment.
Commissioner Burr: Well if the maker of the motion would accept it as an amendment I would
propose those conditions as an amendment.
Chair Griffin: Does the maker of the motion have any comments?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well I ha~e no idea if it could be moved because the slopes of the lands are
such and I am not out there at that site to look at that now to see if it is possible to move that site.
I am willing to go back to the six month temporary period and the screening and of course the
color is in the motion already but I have no way to be able to determine whether there is another
reasonable place on that site with those slopes to put a structure in order to allow an agricultural
use,
Commissioner Burt: Well I just don’t believe that the property owner has the inherent right to
have that nonconforming structure. So if we are going to grant a variance on the overall siteand
the development on the overall site then we don’t have an obligation in my mind to allow
continued use of something that was erected without a permit that intrudes on the visua! corridor.
We just don’t have that obligation to allow that if we are going to allow granting of a very
significant variance. My sense is that the sentiment of some of the Commissioners is the City
somehow has the obligation to grant that as an inherent property right and I don’t believe that
exists.
Chair Griffin: Do you have any further comments? Do you .accept or reject the amendment?
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
45
46
47
48
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am going to reject it at the moment. I want to hear what other people have
to say.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In a way it seems like we are talking about the minutia of the project
and in a way not. I think we are talking about some larger issues here. I have struggled with this
because the applicant has done a really good job of getting the impervious surface down. At the
same time I have been struggling for the last months with variance findings and a consistency
between our decisions and an expectation that the public has a right to expect. I mentioned this
at the last Commission hearing on this project too. I fred myself, whatsways me more on this
one too is because the property owner purchased the property when the existing zoning was in
place. So there is not even a change of zoning that I can fall back on. This project is in the
scenic corridor. It is an Open Space District. I do have difficulties with the location of the
greenhouse, the size of it and all that and understand that the color and screening could help a lot.
But it isn’t a right and I think that could be improved upon. My biggest difficulty is with the
variance findings fo~: number two, the granting of the application is necessary forthe
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent
unreasonable property laws or unnecessary hardship. I have great difficulty making that finding.
It is not for us to determine what size is a reasonable size home for someone to have at the same
time this is 3,433 square feet which is a sizable residence, So I am not having difficulty with
what I would almost consider an HIE, the side variance for the pool but the from variances for
the garage and front setbacks I cannot make those findings. So those two variances I would not
be able to make.
Chair Griffin: I think that the greenhouse is tough on people coming around that coruer. I have
done it a couple of times now and every time I make that drive up Page Mill Road I am really
socked between the eyes by that greenhouse. I think that it is a problem for me and i{ sounds like
it is a problem for some of the other Commissioners. I liked what Steven had in here in his
conditions of approval to have the color blending in with a camouflage color or something like
that. I appreciate that the applicant offered to have a screen with vegetation and obscured by
landscaping is very well known and often used solution to masking something of this nature.
The issue of the temporary buildingseems to meto be pretty critical here. If this thing is a
permanent building then it is obviously nonconforming. My understanding is that the applicant
does not have a building permit for this thing and once he starts getting into all of that business
and going to the effort to make it a permanent structure he is going to have to have a foundation
to go along with it and then we get into permeability issues. So I thought that Steven’s solution
was rather ingenious actually to come up with a way to allow the applicant to grow his tomatoes
for six months of the year and then it is just lightweight tube aluminum, it probably takes a half a
day to take it down, pain in the neck, but that is the price of growing tomatoes is kind of my
feeling about the thing.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Michael, I think were we are is that you want to go back to leaving in the
statement that the greenhouse shall be disassembled and stored for at least six months and
greenhouse shall be screened from visibility from Page Mill Road. That would make the motion
satisfact6ry to you. I will do that.
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
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: So you are saying to keep it a temporary structure and put bushes in front of it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie would like to have it say growing season. Is that agreeable to you?
You want a seven-month season or six month season? You have your choice.
Chair Griffin: How long do tomatoes take to grow?
Vice-Chair Cassel: They grow here for eight months of the year.
Chair Griffin: All right, growing season is fine with me.
Commissioner Bialson: Fine with me as the seconder.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. So the motion shall read as it is here with addition that it will be
a growing season of eight months and the greenhouse shall be screened fromvisibility from Page
Mill Road.
Chair Griffin: And that has been-agreed to by both the maker and seconder. Do we have any
discussion on this new version? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Not on the greenhouse aspect. I have one question for Staff and then I will
just make some comments on the overall issue. One of the findings m~der the variance is that it
is necessary for a substantial property right of the owner. Can Staff explain what is that
substantial property right that would be denied the owner if they were not allowed this full
development?
Ms. Grote: The substantial property right would be a similarly sized house to other houses that
are inthe OS District or in the surrounding district. So if you don’t grant the variance the
property owner doesn’t have the ability to use his property the way or to the degree that someone
in that zoning district would otherwise have the ability to use their property.
Commissioner Burt: When you say ’would otherwise,’ you mean someone else that has
grandfathered in a larger structure or would otherwise be allowed to build it based upon our
current .zoning regulations?
Ms. Grote: Would otherwise be allowed to build it based on our current regulations. In other
words, they have such a unique situation because they are so much smaller than other OS District
lots they are entirely within a scenic setback, which is unusual in that area. There are certainly
other lots in the area that have.portions of their lots in the scenic setback but not the entire lot.
So they have such an unusual set of circumstances that they need a variance to be able to develop
.the way a more typical or ordinary lot in the OS District would Otherwise be able to develop.
Commissioner Burt: So you are saying that a 3,400 square foot house or anything less than a
5,000 square foot house that they are proposing would be a denial of a property right?
Ms. Grote: It would be a denial of what a more typical property right would be. It doesn’t mean
that they don’t have any right to develop their property. They certainly do have a 3,400 square
foot house on the site right now but it denies them the ability to develop their property the way
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
someone who lives on a more typically sized OS District lot would expect to be able to develop
it. They may never get the full 3.5% of a ten acre tot because that might be considered too much
on that site but they have an ability to expect that they have a similar property right to develop.
Commissioner Burr: Could I ask the City Attorney to wade in from a legal standpoint? Does
this constitute a denial of a substantial property right?
Mr. Soder~ren: I think the intent of that sort of finding is to avoid a takings claim when you
down zone and you deprive a property owner of substantially all use of the property or
reasonable use of the property then it can result in a taking. I think in this instance it is to
preserve the fact that he can have a residential structure on his property similarly to that of his
¯ neighbors. I think that is the way we were viewing that finding was mainly to preserve that so it
wouldn’t create that sort of situation where we were depriving him of that type of use.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate hearing this all and I thinkit is of great interest but I have a
sense that we have a majority ready to vote for a motion. We have two other items on the
agenda and I would like to call for th~ question.
Chair Griffin: Is there a second to that?
Commissioner Packer: Second.
Chair Griffin: Bormie seconded. We will then vote for the call of the question. All in favor of
calling ihe question say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) We have that carry with Commissioners
Burt and Holman not in agreement.
MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-0, Commissioners Holman and Burt voted no)
We will now.have the vote itself. All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? (nays) Again the motion passes with Commissioners Burt and Holman disagreeing.
Commissioner Burr: May I, for the record, as the Council has asked us in the past to make clear
our basis for not only our majority votes but minority votes I would like to just summarize for
the record the reasons for opposing. I cannot find substantial evidence for finding number three
un,der the variance findings nor findings number four or five under Site and Design Review
findings. I would like to in the future have a more detailed discussion with an explanation from
City Staff about variance finding number two regarding the property right. So variance fmding
three and Site and Design findings four and five are the basis for my dissenting vote.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just going along that way my no vote is because I cannot make variance
finding number two.
1
2
3
Chair Griffin: That brings us to the end of this particular agenda item. It is ten past nine and we
will take a seven-minute break.
Attachment C
Excerpt of the City Council Meeting
Minutes of 02/17/04
97-234
*5. Public Hearing: Th’e City Council will consider an application by
Cartmell/Tam Architects on behalf of David Ditzel for Site and Design
Review to allow a 1,677 square foot addition to an existing 3,433
single-family residence located at 4010 Page Mill Road and
construction of a new swimming pool, including a request for the
following variances: a 29’6" side yard setback where a 30’ setback is
required, construction of an exterior stairway and landing having a 46’
front yard setback and construction of a new garage having .a 69’ front
yard setback where a 200’ setback is required, and atotal impervious
area of 13.5%, where 3.5% is normally the .maximum allowed. Zone
District: Open Space (OS): Environmental Assessment: A Negative
Declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 03-D-10, 03-EIA-15, 03-V-
1 5, (Continued from 11/24/2003)
*This item was quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s Disclosure Policy
Council .Member Morton said he had no disclosures.
Council Member Kishimoto said she and Council Member Freeman
viewed the site.
Council Member Kleinberg said she drove past the project and spoke to
a Planning Commissioner.
Project Planner Steven Turner said the project was beforethe Council
for site and design review.
Council Member Cordell disclosed she had discussed the matter with a
Commissioner.
Council Member Morton asked whether the paving stones changed the
impervious area.
Mr. Turner said.the choice of the permeable paving system reduced
the amount of impervious surfaces.
Council Member Morton asked whether the percentages changed the
subject description or was the 13.5,percent a reflection of the choice of
impervious matter.
Mr, Turner said the use of the system reduced the amount of pervious
Page 1
surfaces. The 13.5 percent included the building footprint and the
nonpervious portions.
Council Member Morton said the system would not be included in the
calculation. Ordinarily there was a 3.5 percent impervious surface. Due
to the choice of materials for the driveway, there would be a 13.5
percent impervious section after the reduction.
Mr. Turner said with the new system change to the driveway, there
would be less impervious surface on the site..
Mayor Beecham declared the public hearing open.
Applicant David Ditzel, property owner, said solutions to all the
concerns had been addressed.
Kathy Cartmell, Cartmell/Tam Architects, said she hoped the project
met with the Council’s approval.
Timothy_]. Drabik, 3995 Page Mill Road, said, as a neighbor, he
approved of the project and believed the variance should be granted.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, had concerns regarding the lot coverage that
was four times the maximum allowed in the Open Space (OS) District.
The size of a house on a one-acre lot should not be allowed to be the
same size as a house on a ten-acre lot.
John Baca, 484 Oxford Street, said any increase of impervious surface
should be looked at carefully.
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, said policies had not bee~n followed
on the project. There was no protection of the scenic right-of-way
along Page Mill Road.
Mayor Beecham declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Burr said the staff report (CMR: 156:04) reflected the position of
the majority of the Commissioners as well as the minority viewpoints.
Council Member Mossar asked about replacement of vegetation and
the trimming of the vegetation along Page Mill Road.
Page 2 ,
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said
the Council could include a condition for ongoing maintenance of
landscape screening for the duration of the project,
Managing Arborist David Docktor said the County performed a 10-year
safety vegetation clearing along Page Mill Road.
Council Member IVlossar questioned the disassembly and storage of the
greenhouse during off-season growing months.
Mr. Turner said the structure was classified as temporary and was
used as a greenhouse. It did not have a foundation; it was made of
metal tubing and was covered with fabric material.
Council Member Mossar said there should be stipulations for the
greenhouse structure that stated it could not be permanent and would
be disassembled for part of the year.
Mr. Turner said that was appropriate.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the stipulation could be
enforced and at what cost to staff.
Mr. Turner said staff would need to inspect the site on a regular basis.
Council Member IVlossar said a stipulation should be added that the
property owners maintain vegetative screening thEoughout the life of
the permit, All references to the greenhouse should be dropped.
Council Member Morton said staff should not have to determine
whether the greenhouse should be dismantled.
.Council Mlember Kleinberg asked Commissioner Burr his position on the
greenhouse and its visibility in the OS District.
Mlr. Burr said the greenhouse was a non-conforming structure made of
materials that were contrasting to the natural habitat. The visibility.of
the structure from the OS District was a concern.
Council Member Kleinberg said there was special zoning in the OS
District. The proximity of the non-conforming structure created an
intrusion into the visual corridor. Variances in the OS District should be
for specific living needs.
Page 3
Council Member Cordell said she was concerned about the policy
issues. She disagreed that different sized lots should be treated
similarly. She noted the Planning Commission had recommended the
variances simply because they had been requested.
Council Member Freeman asked staff about regulations for the
turnaround in the driveway grading and the swimming pool area.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the open space policies called for
minimized grading to balance cut and fill.
Council Member Freeman asked about the regulations imposed on the
grandfathered property, which was within the 200-foot setback
regulation.
Ms. Grote said major modification~.s required a variance application with
a grandfathered situation. The lot was small and within a special 200-
foot setback.
council Member Freeman asked for the final decision on the new
Storage shed.
Mr. Emslie he said the storage shed needed to be removed prior to
finalization of the project.
Council Member Freeman said both the storage shed and the
greenhouse were visible from the road. The property was engulfed in
the 200-foot setback and special precautions should be taken to keep
the view as clean as possible.
Council Member Kishimoto said a one-acre lot was larger than the
average Palo Alto lot, and a 3,400 square-fc~ot home was larger than
average.
Vice Mayor. Butch said what could be done on a ten-acre lot should not
affect what could be done on a one-acre lot.
Mayor Beecham said the issue was the expansion on the property.
MOTION: Council Member IVlossar moved, seconded by Morton, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendation to approve the: 1) Negative Declaration, in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Variance
to allow 13.5 percent lot coverage and setback encroachments as
Page 4
described in the Draft Record of Land Use Action; and 3) Site and
Design Review application to allow construction of a residential
addition in the Open Space district.
MOTION FAILED 6-2, Mossar, Morton "yes", Ojakian absent.
Interim City Attorney Wynne Furth said the applicant was entitled to
have a Statement of Findings of fact and conclusions based on the
Council’s analysis.
Mayor Beecham stated staff would be directed to return with a
Statement of Findings of Fact and a r.evised record of land use action
reflecting the basis for the decision,
Ms, Furth said the applicant and the individuals who spoke that
evening would be advised of the date when the item would return,
Page 5