HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-17 City Council (3)FROM:
City of Palo
CITY co N ity Manager’s Report
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 17, 2003 CMR: 515:03
3875 PAGE MILL ROAD [03-D-01, 03-EIA-09]: APPLICATION BY
STOECKER & NORTHWAY ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF
RICHARD KNISS FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW
INSTALLATION OF AN ORCHARD AND GARDEN AS AN
AGRICULTURAL USE, CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-STORY
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,277 SQUARE
FEET AND INSTALLATION OF A RETRACTABLE AMATEUR
RADIO ANTENNA.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.
Site and Design Review application to allow installation of an orchard and garden as
an agricultural use, construction of a single-story accessory structure of approximately
1,277 square feet and installation of a retractable amateur radio antenna.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is an undeveloped parcel of approximately ten acres in the Open
Space district. The applicant has proposed an organic orchard and garden as the primary
use, and a +1,200 square foot accessory building and an amateur radio antenna as
accessory use and facilities.
The proposed use of the accessory building is for storage of equipment associated with
the orchard and the amateur radio facilities. The building will contain a half-bath (sink
and toilet) and a single, large room. Storage would be in the lower level of the building.
A porch would be attached to the building. This structure is not considered a living unit
because it would not contain a kitchen. Conversion of this structure to a living unit would
require approval of a separate Site and Design Review application and issuance of a
CMR:~Page 1 of 3
-~ kS.’~
building permit. The Commission requested that the conditions of approval include a
requirement that the accessory building shall be used for storage and occasional
occupancy and not as a full-time residence. The conditions of approval have been
modified to include this statement.
The project plans indicate the location of the antenna structure, which would be located
approximately 200’ from Page Mill Road. The antenna structure is a retractable pole that
would be 40-feet tall when fully extended and 24-feet tall when retracted. The antenna is
an array of aluminum tubing with dimension between 20’ and 30’ square. This array
would be visible when the antenna pole is fully extended. Visual impacts of the antenna
and the structure would be minimal, as the antenna would be located in a densely
vegetated area with mature trees and would only be extended on an occasional basis. The
applicant indicated that no trees would be removed to accommodate the antenna array.
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
September 24, 2003. The Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
Negative Declaration and Site and Design Review application (6-0-1-0, Commissioner
Bellomo absent).
The Commission’s review included discussions regarding the viability of an orchard and
garden in an area of steep slopes and rocky soils, the potential use of the accessory
building as a single-family dwelling, and the visibility of the amateur radio antenna and
antenna structure from Page Mill Road and neighboring properties.
The Planning Division arborist, Dave Dockter, indicated that the success of the site as an
orchard and garden depended upon careful selection of trees and planting material. The
orchard, the garden and planting area would have to be carefully maintained and
controlled, but it would be possible to create growing conditions that would support this
use.
The applicant responded to written questions from a member of the public regarding the
classification of the antenna as an accessory use rather than a telecommunications facility
and the construction of a curb cut adjacent to the project site. Amateur radio antennas
have not been classified as telecommunications facilities, but rather as a private, non-
commercial accessory uses. An encroachment permit was granted for the construction of
the curb cut at the location designated for a driveway entry when the current owners
originally purchased the property.
The Commission heard from Ms. Sharon Luciw, the property owner immediately south
of the subject property. Ms. Luciw was concerned that an accurate survey had not been
CMR:XXX:XX Page 2 of 3
completed and the property lines as shown on the project plans were incorrect. Survey
errors could result in the new structures being located closer to the shared property line
than as shown on the plans. The applicant indicated that a licensed surveyor has
completed the survey of the site. The applicant offered to share the survey information
with the property owners.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Record of Land Use Action
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report September 24,
2003.
Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes,
September 24, 2003
Project Plans (Council packet only)
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN TURNER
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
D of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:XXX:XX Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2003-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 3875 PAGE MILL ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-09 (CRAIG STARK, APPLICANT)
On November 17, 2003, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
adopted the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review
application for an organic orchard and garden, an accessory
structure, and an amateur radio antenna in the Open Space Zone
District, making the following findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Craig Stark of Stoecker & Northway Architects, on
behalf of Richard Kniss, property owner, has requested the City’s
approval to al!ow installation of an orchard and garden as an
agricultural use, construction of a single-story accessory
structure of approximately 1,227 square feet and installation of a
retractable amateur radio antenna. ("The Project").
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 351-05-047) of
approximately ten acres in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is
undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. 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 primarily used as a small private non-commercial
orchard and garden, consisting of approximately 15-20 fruit trees
and six to eight raised garden planting beds, approximately 6’x
8’ in size.
Accessory to this use would be a structure of approximately 1,227
square feet for storage of garden and orchard related equipment,
and containing a bathroom and home office areas.
A communications antenna, for amateur radio use, will be installed
to the north of the structure, outside of the 200’ scenic setback
area. The antenna would extend to 40’ when in use and to
approximately 23’ when retracted. The proposed antenna is designed
to be self contained, in that it will require no additional support
structure or guy wires other the standard base foundation as
recommended by the manufacturer.
The project will also include installation of a new curb cut on
Page Mill Road and a driveway leading to a private parking area.
Retaining walls will be installed at the portion of the driveway
closest to Page Mill Road, due to the steepness of the land and the
orientation of the driveway. All utilities will be installed,
including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission(Commission)
reviewed the Project on September 24, 2003. The Commission
recommended approval on September 24, 2003. 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 review beginning September 3, 2003
through September 23, 2003. The Environmental Impact Assessment and
Negative Declaration are contained in CMR:
SECTION 3.Site and Desiqn Review Findinqs
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 or nearby sites.
The project does not detract from the natural
character of the site. The primary use of the site would be a small
scale, non-commercial agricultural use requiring only minimal
disturbance to land and existing vegetation. The project introduces
minimal development including an organic orchard and vegetable
garden and an amateur radio communications antenna that would be
used on an occasional basis.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The project will 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
2
Page Mill Road and is of less intensity. 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 primary use as an organic orchard ensures that use
of chemica! herbicide and pesticides be kept to a minimum. The
storage of any type of hazardous materials, including agricultural
chemicals, requires review and approval from the City of Palo Alto
Fire Department for safe storage and containment. The use of
permeable materials is proposed to help reduce rainwater flows
across the land. The proposed design of the driveway, walkways,
accessory building and orchard will follow existing site
topography.
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-I: 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.
Agricultural and accessory uses are permitted within this district.
The project scope is of low intensity, in that the only structures
proposed are for a ±1,200 square foot structure and an amateur
radio antenna facility, both of which are expected to be screened
by the existing mature vegetation.
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 of the site.
Although the project would bring development to an essentially
undisturbed site, the orchard, garden, accessory structures, and
other 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
grading 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 of Palo
Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians. Although the project would bring development to an
essentially undisturbed site, the accessory structures 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 foothili 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.
1.The development should not be visually
intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as
possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The
project scope is of low intensity, in that the only structures
proposed are for a ±1,200 square foot structure and an amateur radio
antenna facility, both of which are expected to be screened by the
existing mature vegetation. The structures are located beyond the
200’ scenic roadway setback along Page Mil! Road. These structures
may be visible from road, but the impacts would be minimal since
they are sited well below the roadway.
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 new structures from adjacent properties. The
amateur radio antenna, when extended to its maximum height of 40’
may be visible from off site views. However, full extension of the
antenna would be on an occasiona! basis. Recommended project
conditions include provisions that the antenna shall be lowered to
the minimum retracted height when not in use. The area of the
addition and site improvements would be located at least 250 feet
from the existing single-family residence at 3885 Page Mill Road to
the south. The antenna structure may be visible from this site when
fully extended, but the impacts to the scenic view from this
location are minimal due to screening provided by existing
vegetation.
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 parking and driveway areas would essentially follow
the natural terrain. Grading and construction would be necessary to
install a driveway and retaining wall, which would meet the
standards set by the Fire Department for emergency access. The
retaining walls would be constructed in such a way to minimize
height. The surface material for the driveway and parking areas
would be decomposed granite, a permeable surface that would blend
in with the environment. The accessory structure would be a small
(±1,200 square foot), single-story building that would be sited on
sloping land in such a way as to minimize cut and fil! to achieve
level f!oors. The west facing side of the structure, visible from
Page Mill Road, would be approximately 14’ tall.
4.Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for
geotechnica! 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. Cut and
grading would be required to install a driveway and retaining wal!.
Minimal grading would occur at the driveway, parking area and
pedestrian pathway leading down to the orchard and accessory
structure. Fill would potentially be used at the area near the
retaining walls to reduce the apparent height, 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, soffits, and trim, and new colors are proposed to
blend in with the natural environment. Roofing materials, approved
by the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Division, would
be installed to blend in with the environment. Retaining walls
constructed for the planter beds, gardens and orchard should 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-01, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Craig Stark of
Stoecker & Northway Architects titled "Kniss Organic Farm", dated
August 6, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section 6. A copy of the plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of
approva! in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 6.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 August 8, 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 approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
structures, and other features.
3. 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.
4.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.
6
5. The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to
blend with the natural surroundings.
6. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-
reflective material.
7.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.
8. The antenna structure shall remain in the retracted
position when the amateur radio facilities are not being used.
9.The accessory building shall not be used as a single
family residence without prior review and approval of a site and
Design Review application for the conversion of the structure to a
dwelling unit.
Building Division
i0. A separate building permit shall be required for
each structurally independent building or structure on the site.
ii. A grading permit shall be required if the driveway
construction involves cutting fill or moving more than i00 cubic
yards of earth.
Planning Division Arborist
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION,GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT
12. Landscape ErosionControl.Provide native shrubbery
along the down-slope side of the proposed road and parking areas.
Integrate various plantings into the areas between the curved
switchback pathway. Native planting such as sages (Salvia) and
coyote bush (Baccharis) in 1-gallon size should be considered. The
plantings shall be irrigated using buried soaker hose and put on a
solar powered automatic timer or other system approved by the City.
13. Wildflower and grasses. After project grading and
construction but before final inspection, a hydroseed mulch mix
shall be applied to all open areas between Page Mill Road and the
lower portion of the proposed orchard. The hydroseed mulching will
promote sprouting of perennial grasses. The mulching shall include
a takafier and straw to aid in retention on the slope. Native seed
mix shall include Elymus glaucus (Blue Wildrye #5 seed), Nassella
pulchra (Foothill Stipa #5 seed), Bromus carinatus (Brome #5 seed)
and California wildflower mix (Central Coast Mix #12 seed). The
mulch shal! be applied to all barren areas, areas where prior
shrubbery had been and overlap into areas each side of the ridge
that are currently occupied by invasive thistles. The hydroseed-
mulch shall also be applied beneath the canopy of all oaks to deter
a new invasion of thistle weed.
14. Tree Protection Instructions. All recommendations
specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall be
consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual (TTM), implemented
and maintained throughout the course of construction. A separate
sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS shall
accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on
al! Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.);
Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation
Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall also
contain the arborist report (McClenahan dated May 26, 2003). This
sheet shall clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where the
fencing wil! be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees
to be retained and those to be removed. The trees to be protected
shall be numbered on all plan sheets and reference the tree
protection instructions sheet.
15. All utilities proposed for the project requiring
trenching or boring shall be shown on the construction drawings
with note details digging and backfill; and shall show that no
conflict will Occur between the utilities and any trees to be
retained.
16. Inspection Schedule~. All inspections outlined in
the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, and shall be
performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be
printed on the final set of plans submitted for the building
permit.
17. Tree Protection Statement: A written statement
shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that
protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition,
grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise
approved by the City Arborist.
18. Fencing -Protected Trees and Designated Trees.
Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to
achieVe three primary functions, i) to keep the foliage canopy and
branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and
activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact
and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are
restricted, unless otherwise approved.
a.Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be
preserved shall be protected with fencing. Because of
the steep terrain, orange plastic fencing may be used
supported with steel stakes, driven into the ground to a
depth of at least 18-inches at no more than 10-foot
spacing.
b. The upper portion of trees # 2, oak grove #3 and oak
grove #4 shall be provided with silt fencing buried at
least 4-inches below grade and stapled in place.
c. Type I Tree Protection. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the
tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project.
d. Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before
demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in
place until final inspection of the project, except for
work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ
requires approval by the project arborist or City
Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees).
e. ~Warning’ sign. A warning sign shall be prominently
displayed on each fence at 20-fo0t intervals. The sign
shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x ll-inches and clearly
state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall
not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC
Section 8.10.110."
DURING CONSTRUCTION
19. Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist
shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a
minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in
receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each
month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154.
20. The following tree preservation measures apply to
all trees to be retained:
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall
not be altered.
c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
21. Prior to the installation of the required protective
fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be
performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manual,
Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first
be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974.
Fire Department
22. 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.
Public Works Department
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
23. 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.
24. Grading Permit -Permittee must obtain a grading
permit from the City of Pa!o Alto Building Inspection Division if
excavation volume (outside the building footprint) exceeds !00
cubic yards.
25. 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 m6nthly 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
26. Erosion Control Plan -This project site is
considered to be environmentally sensitive due to the sloped nature
of the site and presence of the West Fork of Adobe Creek near the
easterly boundary of the site. The applicant shall prepare an
interim erosion and sediment control plan as part of the
improvement plan set. The erosion control plan should include a
limit of work line to identify the limit of all land disturbing
activities that will occur during the project. The erosion control
plan will include the temporary measures to be employed during
i0
construction to control erosion, sediment and storm water
pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s), which apply
to the work, should be incorporated into the design.
27. Master Work Schedule -Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule
to the City Public Works Engineering (PWE) division. The schedule
must show the proposed grading schedule and the proposed condition
of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October I,
and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The master
Work Schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all
interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measurers, and
other project improvements. After permit issuance, updated
schedules shall be provided to PWE each month that the permit is
active.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
28. Public Works Inspection -The contractor must
contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to
any work performed in the public right-of-way.
29. Materials Storage -No storage of construction
materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without
prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
30. 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).
31.Dust Control & Cleanup - To reduce dust 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.
32. 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
II
33. Final Approva! - 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-deve!opments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off.
Utilities- Water, Gas, Wastewater
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
34. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-
wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of
Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.).
35. ~The applicant shall submit improvement plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of
all underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service
requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and
any other required utilities. Note: 2" and smaller water meters
shall be located in the public right of way.
36. The applicant must show on the site plan the
existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
37. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains
or services, the applicant shal! submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation
of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in
accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All
utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown
on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered
civi! engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete
schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s
literature on the materials to be used for approval by the
utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor wil! not
be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other
submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater
engineering section.
38. The applicant shall pay the connection fees
associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be
installed or inspected by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
12
39. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections
7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show-the
location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly.
Utilities Marketing
40. Prior to issuance of either a building permit or
grading permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by
the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with
more than 1500 square feet of landscaped area, a water budget shall
be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter
shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan review Specialist at
(650) 329-2549 for additional information.
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval.In the event actual
construction of the project is 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.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
13
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Steven Turner
Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
DATE:September 24, 2003
SUBJECT:3875 Page Mill Road [03-D-01, 03-EIA-09]: Application by
Stoecker & Northway Architects on behalf of Richard Kniss for Site
and Design Review to allow installation of an orchard and garden as
an agricultural use, construction of a single-story accessory structure
of approximately 1,277 square feet and installation of a retractable
amateur radio antenna. 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
Negative Declaration and the Site and Design review to the City Council, based upon the
Site and Design findings and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval
(Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The project site is a single parcel (APN 351-05-047) of approximately ten acres in the
Palo Alto Foothills. The site is undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities.
Numerous groves of oak trees, as well as chaparral, native and non-native grasses can be
found throughout the area.
Adjacent land uses include single-family residential home sites to the north, south and
east. The site’s westernmost boundary is adjacent to unincorporated Santa Clara County
lands containing the Los Trancos Creek watershed area.
3875 Page Mill Road Page 1
The site contains varying degrees of slope. Adjacent to Page Mill Road, the land quickly
drops off to a reasonably flat area, after which it continues to decrease in elevation at a
relatively constant rate until the slope begins to become less steep approximately 280 feet
from the road. The sides of the property descend at a much steeper rate down into the
canyon.
Project Description
The site would be primarily used as a small private orchard and garden, consisting of
approximately 15-20 fruit trees and six to eight raised garden planting beds,
approximately 6’x 8’ in size.
Accessory to this use would be a structure of approximately 1,277 square feet for sto.rage
of garden and orchard related equipment, and containing a bathroom and office areas.
The building would be a simple, rectangular shaped structure with dimensions of 18’ x
30’. A covered porch having dimensions of 8’ x 30’ would be attached to the building.
Storage areas would be located under the deck. The structure would have a gable roof
composed of fire-rated materials. An operable louver on the west side of the building
would provide ventilation. Exterior siding would be western red cedar or redwood board
and batten, with a stain to protect the natural color of the wood. Windows would be
wood clad, with a dark frame - either dark green, brown, gray, or black. The concrete at
grade would be natural gray, allowed to weather. Exposed exterior framing would be
clear sealed Douglas fir dimensional lumber or glue-laminated lumber as required.
Roofing would be either fire treated cedar shakes or shingles, or concrete shakes to match
the appearance and color of cedar shakes. The overall height of the building would be
+14’ at the uphill side of the building and + 22’ at the downhill side.
Exterior lighting would consist of general illumination for the driveway and path. These
would be low (1-2 feet high), shielded downlights. The purpose of these lights is to
provide enough illumination to locate the path and driveway. The light bulbs would not
be exposed. The lighting for the accessory building would consist of a few downlights
under the deck roof, and two emergency/security lights located near the ridge at each end
of the building.
In addition, a communications antenna would be installed to the north of the structure,
outside of the 200’ scenic setback area. The antenna would extend to 40’ when in use and
to approximately 23’ when retracted. The proposed antenna is designed to be self
contained, in that it would require no additional support structure or guy wires other the
standard base foundation as recommended by the manufacturer.
The project would also include installation of a new curb cut on Page Mill Road and a
driveway leading to a private parking area. Retaining walls would be installed at the
portion of the driveway closest to Page Mill Road, due to the slope of the land and the
orientation of the driveway. A pedestrian pathway would lead to the accessory building
3875 Page Mill Road Page 2
and orchard area. The driveway and pathways would be composed of decomposed
granite with an aggregate base. The driveway plan has been reviewed by the Fire
Department staff, who found it to meet the standards for emergency access to the site.
All utilities would be installed, including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
A copy of the applicant’s project description letter, with supporting documentation, is
contained in Attachment D.
DISCUSSION
Site and Design Review Findings
The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as
follows:
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 be a small scale, non-commercial agricultural use requiring only
minimal disturbance to land and existing vegetation. The project introduces minimal
development including an organic orchard, vegetable garden and amateur radio
communications that would be used on an occasional basis.
o
o
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project 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 is of less intensity. 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.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in
construction of the project.
The primary use as an organic orchard ensures that use of chemical herbicide and
pesticides will be kept to a minimum. The storage of any type of hazardous materials,
including agricultural chemicals, requires review and approval from the City of Palo
Alto Fire Department for safe storage and containment. The use of permeable
3875 Page Mill Road Page 3
materials will help reduce rainwater flows across the land. The proposed design of
the driveway, walkways, accessory building and orchard will follow existing site
topography.
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.
Visibili _ty 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 applicant has installed story poles to represent approximate heights and
location of the accessory building and the antenna structure in a retracted height. The
applicant also placed a balloon to a height of 40’ to represent the approximate height of
the antenna in its extended form.
The story poles provide an estimate of views on and off the site. The applicant has
provided photographs illustrating the anticipated views of the site and installed story
poles from various vantage points. In the photographs, the west elevation of the proposed
accessory building can be seen from the roadway, but only the top half of the building
would be seen from that vantage point. All photographs provided show that the proposed
accessory structure would be obscured from view. The photographs also show that the
proposed antenna structure would be obscured by the existing foliage from all vantage
points.
Based upon site topography, the location of existing mature foliage and the proposed
locations of the structures on the project site, the impacts to adjacent property owners
would be less than significant.
The organic orchard and garden would not be visible from Page Mill Road.
As previously mentioned, installation of the driveway requires the construction of a
+130’ retaining wall to allow emergency vehicles to access the site. The retaining wall
would be located near the shared property line between 2875 and 3885 Page Mill Road.
The height of the wall would vary between zero and +4 feet. The wall would consist of
poured-in-place concrete. The natural gray color of the concrete would not be painted,
but allowed to weather and change color naturally. The applicant has indicated, on the
project plans, an option to add fill to the base of the wall to reduce the apparent overall
height of the wall as seen from all site views. Staff recommends that the amount of fill be
3875 Page Mill Road Page 4
kept to a minimum and the wall be painted or colored appropriately to blend in with the
natural environment.
Lighting
Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a lighting plan be provided to staff
prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan woul~t indicate the location, type, and
voltage rating for each light. Low-voltage ground level lights, rather than bollard type
lights, would be appropriate to provide safety and security for automobile and pedestrian
circulation around the site. Staff recommends that the building security lights, proposed
to be located near the ridge line, be moved to the plate line or lower to reduce impacts on
neighboring properties. These lights would include motion-based activation sensors; the
bulbs and!or filaments would be shielded so that they cannot be seen from off site views.
Landscaping
It is the applicant’s intent to minimize grading activities as a result of the construction.
Staff recommends that native landscaping be provided in specific locations to minimize
erosion and improve pathway stability. In addition, an application of hydroseed over a
larger area would further reduce erosion. The native vegetation would be planted on the
downslopes of the driveway, parking area, and pathway and would further stabilize these
areas. Hydroseed would be applied to the ’°spine" of the slope where construction
activities would take place.
Oak Tree Protection
The site contains numerous valley oak and coast live oak tree specimens. No tree removal
is proposed for the location of the orchard, garden or accessory structures. The pedestrian
pathway from the parking area to the accessory building would meander down the slope,
avoiding two small groves of young oaks. The project plans indicate the location of tree
protection fencing around oaks potentially impacted by the proposed construction.
Project construction would occur in accordance with the requirements outlined in the
arborist report submitted by the applicant and the conditions imposed by the City’s
Managing Arborist.
A site inspection was conducted by the Planning and Transportation Commission on
September 18, 2003. Staff will provide an oral report to the Commission summarizing the
comments made during the inspection.
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 Page 5
Policy L- 1: 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. Agricultural and
accessory uses are permitted within this district. The project scope is of low intensity, in
that the only structures proposed are for a +1,200 square foot structure and an amateur
radio antenna facility, both of which are expected to be screened by the existing mature
vegetation.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the scale and character of the
City. Avoid land uses that are overwhehning 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 of the site. Although the project would bring
development to an essentially undisturbed site, the orchard, garden, accessory structures,
and other 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 grading 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. Although the project would bring development to
an essentially undisturbed site, the accessory structures 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.
3875 Page Mill Road Page 6
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:
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 the only structures proposed are for
a +1,200 square foot structure and an amateur radio antenna facility, both of which are
expected to be screened by the existing mature vegetation. The structures are located
beyond the 200’ scenic roadway setback along Page Mill Road. These structures may
be visible from the road, but the impacts would be minimal since they are sited well
below the roadway.
°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 new structures from adjacent properties. The amateur radio antenna,
when extended to its maximum height of 40’ may be visible from off site views.
However, full extension of the antenna would be on an occasional basis.
Recommended project conditions include provisions that the antenna shall be lowered
to the minimum retracted height when not in use. The area of the addition and site
improvements would be located at least 250 feet from the existing single-family
residence at 3885 Page Mill Road to the south. The antenna structure may be visible
from this site when fully extended, but the impacts to the scenic view from this
location are minimal, due to screening provided by existing vegetation.
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
fi’om a distance. The parking and driveway, areas would essentially follow the natural
terrain. Grading and construction would be necessary to install a driveway and
retaining wall, which would meet the standards set by the Fire Department for
emergency access. The retaining walls would be constructed in such a way to
minimize height. The surface material for the driveway and parking areas would be
decomposed granite, a permeable surface that would blend in with the environment.
The accessory structure would be a small (+1,200 square foot), single-story building
that would be sited on sloping land in such a way as to minimize cut and fill to
achieve level floors. The west facing side of the structure, visible from Page Mill
Road, would be approximately 14’ tall.
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. Cut and grading would be required to install a
3875 Page Mill Road Page 7
o
driveway and retaining wall. Minimal grading would occur at the driveway, parking
area and pedestrian pathway leading down to the orchard and accessory structures.
Fill would potentially be used at the area near the retaining walls to reduce the
apparent height, 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, soffits, and trim, and new colors are
proposed to blend in with the natural environment. Roofing materials, approved by
the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Division, would be installed to blend
in with the environment. Retaining walls constructed for the planter beds, gardens
and orchard should be made of natural materials.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The project proposal is in compliance with the development regulations of the OS
District (PAMC 18.71) and the Site and Design Review Combining District regulations
(PAMC 18.82). The antenna, when extended to full height, will be 40’ tall. The
maximum height for antennas in the OS District is 40’. The antenna will be extended
only when in use; a recommended condition of approval states that when the amateur
radio facilities are not being used, the antenna shall be in the retracted position. Recent
State of California legislation (AB 1228, July 2003) limits a local authority’s ability to
restrict amateur radio communications. The legislation states that local agencies shall
reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Planning Commission heating 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 heating
notice card.
Attached to this staff report is a letter from Sharon and William Luciw, dated September
t 5, 2003 (Attachment E), regarding issues concerning the proposed project. The issues
raised in the letter have been addressed in revised plans, dated August 8, 2003,
supporting documentation from the property owner (Attachment D), and in this staff
report.
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 agricultural
uses and accessory buildings and facilities.
3875 Page Mill Road Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared and has been available for a 20-day public
review period beginning on September 3, 2003 and ending on September 23, 2003. A
copy of the document is provided as Attachment C.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A:Location Map
Attachment B.Record of Land Use Approval, including recommended Conditions
of Approval
Attachment C:Negative Declaration
Attachment D.Project Description Letter and Supporting Documentation
Attachment E:Letter from Sharon and William Luciw
Attachment F:Project Plan Set (Commissioners Only)
COURTESY COPIES
Craig Stark, Stoecker and Northway Architects, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, 94301
Richard Kniss, 1985 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, 94301
Sharon Luciw, 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, 94022
Prepared by: Steven Turner
Planner
Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
Department!Division Head Approval: ’-)~’-’~/L___~/’@’OT~
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
3875 Page Mill Road Page 9
7
The City of
Palo Alto
3875
3875 Page Mill Rd
Site and Design Review
03 -D -01
03 - EIA - 09
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto
335’
Attachment B
ACTION NO. 2003-
RECORD’ OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 3875 PAGE MILL ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-09 (CRAIG STARK, APPLICANT)
On , the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopted
the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application
for an organic orchard and garden, an accessory structure, and an
amateur radio antenna in the Open Space Zone District, making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION I. ~gckground. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and.declares as
follows:
A. Craig Stark of Stoecker & Northway Architects, on
behalf of Richard Kniss, property owner, has requested the City’s
approval to al!ow installation of an orchard and garden as an
agricultura! use, construction of a single-story accessory
structure of approximately 1,227 square feet and installation of a
retractable amateur radio antenna. ("The Project").
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 351-05-047)of
approximately ten acres in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is
undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. 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 primarily used as a small private non-commercial
orchard and garden, consisting of approximately 15-20 fruit trees
and six to eight raised garden planting beds, approximately 6’x
8’ in size.
Accessory to this use would be a structure of approximately 1,227
square feet for storage of garden and orchard related equipment,
and containing a bathroom and home office areas.
A communications antenna, for amateur radio use, will be installed
to the north of the structure, outside of the 200’ scenic setback
area. The antenna would extend to 40’ when in use and to
approximately 23’ when retracted. The proposed antenna is designed
to be self contained, in that it will require no additional support
structure or guy wires other the standard base foundation as
recommended by the manufacturer.
The project will also include installation of a new curb cut on
Page Mill Road and a driveway leading to a private parking area.
Retaining walls will be installed at the portion of the driveway
closest to Page Mill Road, due to the steepness of the land and the
orientation of the driveway. All utilities will be installed,
including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission(Commission)
reviewed the Project on September 24,2003. The Commission
recommended approval on 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
Environmenta! 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 review beginning September 3, 2003
through September 23, 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 or nearby sites.
The project does not detract from the natural
character of the site. The primary use of the site would be a small
scale, non-commercial agricultural use requiring only minimal
disturbance to land and existing vegetation. The project introduces
minima! development including an organic orchard and vegetable
garden and an amateur radio communications antenna that would be
used on an occasional basis.
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 will 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 is of less intensity. The construction of all
2
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 theproject.
design and
The primary use as an organic orchard ensures that use
of chemica! herbicide and pesticides be kept to a minimum. The
storage of any type of hazardous materials, including agricultural
chemicals, requires review and approval from the City of Palo Alto
Fire Department for safe storage and containment. The use of
permeable materials is proposed to help reduce rainwater flows
across the land. The proposed design of the driveway, walkways,
accessory building and orchard will follow existing site
topography.
4. The use will be 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, 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.
Agricultural and accessory uses are permitted within this district.
The project scope is of low intensity, in that the only structures
proposed are for a ±1,200 square foot structure and an amateur
radio antenna facility, both of which are expected to be screened
by the existing mature vegetation.
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 of the site.
Although the project would bring development to an essentially
undisturbed site, the orchard, garden, accessory structures, and
other proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to
neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
3
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
grading 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 of Palo
Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians. Although the project would bring development to an
essentially undisturbed site, the accessory structures 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 the only structures
proposed are for a ±1,200 square foot structure and an amateur radio
antenna facility, both of which are expected to be screened by the
existing mature vegetation. The structures are located beyond the
200’ scenic roadway setback along Page Mil! Road. These structures
may be visible from road, but the impacts would be minimal since
they are sited well below the roadway.
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 new structures from adjacent properties. The
amateur radio antenna, when extended to its maximum height of 40’
may be visible from off site views. However, ful! extension of the
antenna would be on an occasiona! basis. Recommended project
conditions include provisions that the antenna shall be lowered to
4
the minimum retracted height when not in use. The area of the
addition and site improvements would be located at least 250 feet
from the existing single-family residence at 3885 Page Mill Road to
the south. The antenna structure may be visible from this site when
fully extended, but the impacts to the scenic view from this
location are minimal due to screening provided by existing
vegetation.
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 parking and driveway areas would essentially follow
the natural terrain. Grading and construction would be necessary to
install a driveway and retaining wall, which would meet the
standards set by the Fire Department for emergency access. The
retaining walls would be constructed in such a way to minimize
height. The surface material for the driveway and parking areas
would be decomposed granite, a permeable surface that would blend
in with the environment. The accessory structure would be a small
(±1,200 square foot), single-story building that would be sited on
sloping land in such a way as to minimize cut and fill to achieve
level f!oors. The west facing side of the structure, visible from
Page Mill Road, would be approximately 14’ tall.
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. Cut and
grading would be required to install a driveway and retaining wall.
Minimal grading would occur at the driveway, parking area and
pedestrian pathway leading down to the orchard and accessory
structure. Fill would potentially be used at the area near the
retaining walls to reduce the apparent height, 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, soffits, and trim, and new colors are proposed to
blend in with the natural environment. Roofing materials, approved
by the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Division, would
be installed to blend in with the environment. Retaining walls
constructed for the planter beds, gardens and orchard should be
made of natural materials.
SECTION 4.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Pa!o Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-D-01, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Craig Stark of
Stoecker & Northway Architects titled "Kniss Organic Farm", dated
August 6, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section 6. 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 6.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 August 8, 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 approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
structures, and other features.
3. 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 natura! environment.
4.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 shal! be shielded so that
they cannot be seen from off site views.
5. The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to
blend with the natural surroundings.
6. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-
reflective material.
7.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.
8.The antenna structure shall remain in the retracted
position when the amateur radio facilities are not being used.
Building Division
9. A separate building permit shall be required for
each structurally independent building or structure on the site.
i0. A grading permit shall be required if the driveway
construction involves cutting fill or. moving more than i00 cubic
yards of earth.
Planning Division Arborist
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT
ii. Landscape Erosion Control.Provide native shrubbery
along the down-slope side of the proposed road and parking areas.
Integrate various plantings into the areas between the curved
switchback pathway. Native planting such as sages (Salvia) and
coyote bush (Baccharis) in 1-gallon size should be considered. The
plantings shall be irrigated using buried soaker,hose and put on a
solar powered automatic timer or other system approved by the City.
12. Wildflower and grasses. After project grading and
construction but before final inspection, a hydroseed mulch mix
shall be applied to all open areas between Page Mill Road and the
lower portion of the proposed orchard. The hydroseed mulching wil!
promote sprouting of perennial grasses. The mulching shal! include
a takafier and straw to aid in retention on the slope. Native seed
mix shall include Elymus glaucus (Blue Wildrye #5 seed), Nassella
pulchra (Foothill Stipa #5 seed), Bromus carinatus (Brome #5 seed)
and California wildflower mix (Central Coast Mix #12 seed). The
mulch shall be applied to all barren areas, areas where prior
shrubbery had been and overlap into areas each side of the ridge
that are currently occupied by invasive thi.stles. The hydroseed-
mulch shall also be applied beneath the canopy of all oaks to deter
a new invasion of thistle weed.
13. Tree Protection Instructions. All recommendations
specified in the Tree Preservation Report for the project shall be
consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual (TTM), implemented
and maintained throughout the course of construction. A separate
sheet titled: TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS shall
accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on
all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.);
Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation
Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall also
contain the arborist report (McClenahan dated May 26, 2003). This
sheet shall clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where the
fencing will be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees
to be retained and those to be removed. The trees to be protected
shall be numbered on all plan sheets and reference the tree
protection instructions sheet.
14. All utilities proposed for the project requiring
trenching or boring shall be shown on the construction drawings
with note details digging and backfill; and shal! show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and any trees to be
retained.
15. Inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined in
the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, and shall be
performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be
printed on the final set of plans submitted for the building
permit.
16. Tree Protection Statement: A written statement
shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that
protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition,
grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise
approved by the City Arborist.
17. Fencing -Protected Trees and Designated Trees.
Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to
achieve three primary functions, I) to keep the foliage canopy and
branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and
activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact
and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are
restricted, unless otherwise approved.
a.Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be
preserved shall be protected with fencing. Because of
the steep terrain, orange plastic fencing may be used
supported with steel stakes, driven into the ground to a
depth of at least 18-inches at no more than 10-foot
spacing.
b. The upper portion of trees # 2, oak grove #3 and oak
grove #4 shall be provided with silt fencing buried at
least 4-inches below grade and stapled in place.
c. Type I Tree Protection. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the
tree(s) to be saved throughout the life of the project.
d. Duration. Tree fencing shall be erected before
demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in
place until final inspection of the project, except for
work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ
requires approva! by the project arborist or City
Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees).
e. ’Warning’ sign. A warning sign shal! be prominently
displayed on each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign
shall be a minimum 8.5-inches x ll-inches and clearly
state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall
not be removed and is subject to a fine according to PAMC
Section 8.10.110."
DURING CONSTRUCTION
18. Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist
shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a
minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in
receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each
month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154.
19. The following tree preservation measures apply to
all trees to be retained:
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shal!
not be altered.
c. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
20. Prior to the installation of the required protective
fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be
performed in accordance with the City Tree Technica! Manual,
Section 5.00. Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first
be approved by Public Works at (650) 496-6974.
Fire Department
21. 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. (P/~4C 15.04.083). Note:
building plans wil! not be approved unless complete sprinkler
coverage is indicated.
Public Works Department
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
25. Erosion Control Plan -This project site is
considered to be environmentally sensitive due to the sloped nature
of the site and presence of the West Fork of Adobe Creek near the
easterly boundary of the site. The applicant shal! prepare an
interim erosion and sediment control plan as part of the
improvement plan set. The erosion control plan should include a
limit of work line to identify the limit of all land disturbing
activities that will occur during the project. The erosion control
plan will include the temporary measures to be employed during
construction to control erosion, sediment and storm water
pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s), which apply
to the work, should be incorporated into the design.
i0
26. Master Work Schedule -Prior to issuance of the
grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule
to the City Public Works Engineering (PWE) division. The schedule
must show the proposed grading schedule and the proposed condition
of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October I,
and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The master
Work Schedule shal! also show the schedule for installation of all
interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measurers, and
other project improvements. After permit issuance, updated
schedules shall be provided to PWE each month that the permit is
active.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
27. Public Works Inspection - The contractor must contact
the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work
performed in the public right-of-way.
28. Materials Storage -No storage of construction
materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without
prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
29. 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 (soi!, asphalt, sawcut slurry,
paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or
storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09).
30. Dust Control & Cleanup - To reduce dust 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.
31. 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
32. Final Approval - The Public Works Inspector shall sign
ii
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-
developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off.
Utilities- Water, Gas, Wastewater
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT
33. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-
wastewater service connection application - !oad sheet for City of
Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.).
34. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of
all underground utilities within the development and the public
right of way including meters, backf!ow preventers, fire service
requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and
any other required utilities. Note: 2" and smaller water meters
shall be located in the public right of way.
35. ~he applicant must show on the site plan the existence
of any water wel!, or auxiliary water supply.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
36. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or
services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section
of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of
water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in
accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All
utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown
on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered
civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete
schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s
literature on the materials to be used for approval by the
utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor will not
be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other
submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater
engineering section.
37. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated
with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed
or inspected by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved
relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will
be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
12
38. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections
7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the
owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Show the
location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector.is required for the supply pipe between
the meter and the assembly.
Utilities Marketing
39. Prior to issuance of either a building permit or
grading permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by
the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with
more than 1500 square feet of landscaped area, a water budget shall
be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter
shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan review Specialist at
(650) 329-2549 for additional information.
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval.In the event actual
construction of the project is 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.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
13
Senior Asst. City Attorney
14
Attachment C
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
o
4.
5.
6.
St
9.
10.
Project Title:3875 Page Mill Road- Personal Orchard/Garden
Accessory Building and Amateur Radio Antenna
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:Steven Turner, Planner (650) 329-2155
Project Location:3875 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto
Application Number(s):03-D-01, 03-EIA-9
Project Sponsor:Craig Stark
Stoecker & Northway Architects
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Property Owner:Rick Kniss
1985 Cowper Streer
Palo Alto, CA 94301
General Plan Designation:Open Space
Zoning:OS- Open Space
Description of the Project:
Project Summary_
The site will be primarily used as a small private orchard and garden, consisting of
approximately 15-20 fruit trees and six to eight raised garden planting beds, approximately
6’x 8’ in size, for organic vegetables.
Accessory to this use would be a structure of approximately 1,200 square feet for storage of
garden and orchard related equipment, and containing a bathroom and home office areas. In
addition, a communications antenna, primary for amateur radio use, will be installed. The
antenna would extend to 40’ when in use and to approximately 23’ when retracted.
The project will also include installation of a new curb cut on Page Mill Road and a driveway
leading to a private parking area. A pedestrian pathway to lead to the accessory building and
orchard area. Water, sewer and electric utilities will be installed. The project will protect stands
of oak trees within the vicinity of construction.
Site Summary- Existing Conditions
The project site is located on a parcel (APN 351-05-047) of approximately ten acres in a Open
Space district adjacent to Page Mill Road. There is no existing development on the site. Access
to the site is presently located on an adjacent parcel at 3885 Page Mill Road. Most of the site
contains a grade in excess of 10%; a small, somewhat level area near Page Mill Road will
provide an area for automobile parking.
Setbacks and Locations of Orchard and Structures
The driveway connecting to Page Mill Road will lead to the parking area, which is located
approximately 15 feet below the roadway. The accessory structure will be located on a slope
approximately 225 feet from Page Mill Road and approximately 45 below the roadway. The
orchard will be down slope from the structure, approximately 65 feet below the roadway. The
antenna will be located northeast of the accessory structure, approximately 50 feet below the
roadway.
12.Other public agencies whose approval is required:None
13.Date Prepared:August 25, 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
Cultural Resources
X Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X Hydrology/Water Quality
X Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
X 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 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by’or agreed to by the project
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 fred 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 f’md 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.
Project Planner
Manage~of Current Planning
Date
Date
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)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-leve!, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3)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 EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less 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
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).
3
5)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 Si-,daificant with Mitigation Measures Incorporatedi" describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined 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,
include 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 free 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
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,3,4
1,3,4
X
X
X
X
II.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)
b)
c)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
HI.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
X
X
X
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
1,3,6
1,3,6
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources So.~c~Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)1
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
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 ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial 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
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
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 any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
1,5
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)1,8 XRupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
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)
d)
e)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative 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
a)
b)
e)
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
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
project?
1,14
1,14
1,14
X
x
X
X
0
g)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 wildlands?
1,3
1,3
1,14
1,14
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
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
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
12
12
12
X
X
X
X
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?12 X
g)1,3,4,7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which 1,4,7,X
would impede or redirect flood flows?11
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,1,7,11 X
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?1,11 X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?1,3,4 X
b)1,2,3,4 X
c)
Conflict 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?
Xi 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?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
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
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,3,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Si~ificant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would 1,2,3,4 X
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)1,3 X
b)
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?
3
3c)
No
Impact
X
X
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
1,3,4,
11
X1V. RECREATION
1
X
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
X
X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.’ Would the project:
a)1,13Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 1,13 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an 13
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,4,13 X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?4,14 X
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?4,14 X
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4,13 X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12,15 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)4,12,15 X
c)
d)
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
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
4,12,15
12,15
15e)
X
X
X
I1
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoSignificantSignificant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 11 X
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 11 X
regulations related to solid waste?
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.
14.
15.
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.
3875 Page Mill Road, Project Plans by Stoecker & Northway Architects, August 8, 2003
Palo 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
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
X
X
X
12
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Location Map
Evaluation of Potentially Significant and other Relevant Environmental Impacts
I. Aesthetics
Installation of the orchard, garden, and accessory structures will add development in a primarily open space
area of the City. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the
public, even though Page Mill Road is designated a scenic roadway. The structures will be constructed
below the roadway and are of insufficient height to impede views. Development on the site will not be seen
from Foothills Park. When in use, the amateur radio antenna will be approximately 40’ high. The amateur
radio will not be used on a full-time basis. The project will be conditioned so that when the antenna is not in
use, it shall be retracted to its lowest point.
Although an accessory structure will be constructed on the site, it is not expected to create a significant
amount of light or glare. The new facilities will be substantially screened from private views by existing
mature vegetation and trees.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project includes 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 primarily be an agricultural 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 related impacts resulting in increases 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 operational 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 not immediately adjacent to housing or other sensitive receptors. As a chemical
storage facility, 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 primarily be an agricultural use. This use des not typically create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to not create objectionable odors when
the project is 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 has determined that no
significant biological resources would be impacted by the project. Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) exist
on the property and in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant does not propose to remove any trees to
construct the project. 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 Oak Woodland with
Chaparral area to the north. 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.
V.Cultural Resources
The site will primarily be an agricultural use 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. Excavation on the project site is expected to be no deeper than one
foot.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
VI. Geology and Soils
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. The San 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
14
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 loss 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. Grading activity
will be limited to the soil removal for the construction of a small portion of the driveway near Page Mill
Road. 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 significant impacts.
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 residential areas and homes. The
proposed project will not involve the use of the storage or handling of hazardous materials or waste. The
organic orchard and gardens would not require the use of such chemicals. If the orchard and garden was
converted to a conventional fanning process, the amount of chemicals involved is not expected to result in
any significant impacts.
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
None required
15
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Installation of the orchard, garden and accessory structures will not significantly change the amount of
impervious surface area on the site. The proposed impervious area and coverage does not exceed the
maximum 3.5 percent allowed in this zone district. 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. A
drainage plan for the site shall 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 runoff 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.
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 of 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.
16
Policy N-7:All developme.nt in the foothill portion of the Planning 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. The project is in the vicinity of protect species
of trees, including Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Construction could impact the health of these trees.
The project will contain mitigation measures as Standard Conditions of Approval that will require
appropriate tree protection measures and devices to ensure survival of these trees.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than Significant.
Compliance with Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan will result in less than
significant impacts.
X.Mineral Resources
The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral
resources are expected.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XI. Noise
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:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
The project includes mitigation that will result in less than significant impacts.
XII. Population and Housing
The project will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area, displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
I7
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
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
Installation of the orchard, garden, and accessory structures will add development in a primarily open space
area of the City. The site will not be used on an occasional basis and not for residential uses. The project will
result in additional vehicle trips to the site, but the number of trips is not expected to generate significant
traffic impacts.
18
Page Mill Road is designated as an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan. The approval of the
proposed project will 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 involve the construction and placement of new electric, sewer, and water service to the
undeveloped site. The connections for the orchard, garden and accessory structure are not expect to create
significant new demand for services at this site. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department has reviewed the
project and has recommended standard conditions of approval.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant.
The project includes mitigation that will result in less than significant impacts.
19
Attachment D
Richard D. Kniss
1985 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
rkniss@pacbell.net
Tel :(650) 328-4979 Fax:(650) 322-7700
August 8, 2003
Mr. Steven Turner
Department of Plarming and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
Re: Site and Design Review for 3875 Page Mill Road,Application # 03-D-03
Dear Mr. Turner,
As part of the application for this project I am including the background information
y h
conce~ng its nature. Nso, I ~ available, at ~y time, to an~-er additional questions as
they may ~ise. Probably the best way to reach me is by cell phone-650-799-6625.
PROJECT SCOPE/LOCATION
Location
The subject project is located at 3875 Page Mill Road, in Palo, Alto on a 10 acre parce!
zoned OS. A 3% land coverage is allowed for a total potential project size of 13,200
square feet of impervious surface. A 200 foot scenic setback applies.
The subject project is an Organic farm and Orchard for personal use by the owner and his
family. It includes a small barn storage structure for supplies, tools and equipment. The
Organic farm will consist of 15-20 fruit trees and 6-8 raised (French style) planting beds
for vegetables. These would be minimally fenced for protection from deer.
Structure
The structure itself is a small barn (not a residence) to be used for the storage of supplies,
tools and equipment, as well as providing shelter from the elements (sun and rain). It is
18 x 30 feet in size and has a total coverage (including roof overhangs, etc.) of 1250
square feet, approximately 10% of the maximum allowable.
Construction is of natural materials: Board and batten siding, reminiscent of the early
western farm house style, and fire proofed, or equivalent, shakes for the roo£ The
complete structure will be fire sprinklered according to code. External colors will be
Road or adjoining neighbors.
The project includes a small amateur radio tower-normally retracted to below 25 feet
(greater than 90% of the time) and extendable to 40 feet. I believe it meets all
requirements for the OS zone. I have moved the antenna from its original proposed
location to one approximately 100 feet further north and down in property elevation by
approximately 7 feet, behind a grove of Oak trees. This was done to accommodate the
neighbor’s concerns. The resulting structure location is well hidden and based on
elevation maps is not visible from Page Mill Road or adjacent properties. Also, this
revised location is well out of the line of sight of a broadband internet communications
antenna the neighbor has, which connects to Sprint. I would be pleased to visually
confirm the location through the use of story poles or a large stabilized balloon.
Utilities
All utilities will be under grounded in accordance with the City’s recommendations.
Driveway/Path
The driveway will enter thru a curb cut approved by the City (see attached) and be
primarily of crushed granite construction for minimal visual and environmental impact.
The neighbor -3885 Page Mill Road - was contacted for a right of way to use a common
drive, but declined to grant an easement.
The driveway is designed for minimum impact, but will require a low retaining wall to
negate erosion at the Page Mill entrance and facilitate fire equipment access.
A foot path of crushed granite will go from the driveway to the barn structure.
PROPERTY BOUNDRIES/SETBACKS
The subject property has been surveyed twice, once at the time of purchase, in 2000,
(surveyors were Alvarez and Associates of San Jose) and most recently in 2003 by the
civil engineering and surveyor firm of Freyer and Laureta to establish site contours and
confirm property boundaries. According to their survey, the subject project meets all
setback and elevation requirements.
SUlVIMARY
This is a minimal project in terms of size, scope and impact to the surrounding landscape.
I purchased the land with the intent of using it primarily as open space for my family. I
believe that this is very much in keeping with the intent and desire of the OS zone.
Naturally, I would welcome the opportunity to walk and discuss the property with you or
any of the Planning Commission members.
April l I, 2000
Jean K. McCown
P, itchey Fisher Whim:~u and K.IcLu
1717 Embarcadero Road
P.O. Box 51050
Palo Ako, CA 94.303
Dear 3can:
Ci_ of Palo Alto
Dcp~r~rn~nt q Planning and
¯ Community Environment
RE: 3875 Page Mil! Road
I have reviewed the 1990 project submiv, a], incluging my July 27, I990 memo
concm-ning the sight distance concerns al; the driveway. "[h, proposed driveway
location was judged to b~ aa£~ptab|:,then. I see t~t r.h¢ new proposal is the sam= as
the 1990 proposal with regard to the drive,way. Conditions thaz would affect sight
distance have not changed much since th~n. Therefore, the same proposed driveway
tocation is still acceptable.
Sincerely,
CAKL STOF?EL, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
CS
Richard D. Kniss
1985 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel:(650) 328-4979 Fax:(650) 322-7700 rlmiss@pacbell.net
August 19, 2003
Mr. Steven Turner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
Re: Site and Design Review for 3875 Page Mill Road,. Application # 03-D-03
I would like to supply you ~4th additional information on the usage of the proposed project at 3875 Page
Mill Road.
The primary use of this project is agricultural, with the re~g land to be preserved in its natural state as
open space. I am proposing to develop an organic fruit tree orchard consisting of 15-20 trees. The trees
would be citrus, apple, pear and apricot. In addition, 6-8 raised planting beds are proposed. The beds would
be approximately 6 feet by- 12 feet each and designed for the gowing of organic vegetables such as
tomatoes, squasl~ lettuce, corn,, etc.
Both the orchard and raised beds would be implemented in a w~, to minimize soil disturbance and follow
the natural contours of the land. These would be minimally fenced to provide protection from the deer.
Water would be provided using drip irrigation, as required. The output of the garden would be for personal
use.
Two accessory structures are also proposed. The first is a small barn (18’X30’) adjacent to the orchard and
planting beds, for the storage of supplies, tools and equipment, as well as providing shelter from the sun
and rain_ R is equipped with a sink and toilet for convenience.
The second is a small shortwave radio tower used for experimenting with long distance communications.
This has been an interest of mine since High School. (This also has the potential for communications
during times of disaster).
In summary, I believe this agricultural project ~ll have a minimal impact, allowing most of the land to
remain in its natural state as open space.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
AUG i 9 003
DEPARTMENT OF [~r’4NING ,AND
COMMUN!TY ENVIRONMENT
Laureta, Inc.Freyer &
civil engine e r S "S U r V e y o P s
August 22, 2003
Mr. Rick Kniss
1985 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:Proposed Barn and Short Wave Radio Antenna
3875 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto
Dear Mr. Kniss:
Per your request, we prepared this letter report to discuss the potential impact your proposed barn and short wave
radio antenna pole, at 3875 Page MN Road, w~ have on the "line of site" between your neighbor’s wireless
communication antenna and the Sprint trat~nitter located atop Monument Peak in Milpitas.
Approach
We performed a partial topographic survey of your property and, with the architectural site plan, determined
the locations and the elevations of your proposed barn and antenna within your property. This can be seen
in Exhibit 1. We did not perform a detailed topographic survey of your nei~-~bor’s antenna, however from
visual observation, that antenna is at least 10 feet above their deck elevation which is approximately at
roadway elevation.
We found that the elevations from our topographic survey compared well to the United States Geological
Survey ~SGS) Quadrangle maps. These maps are useful in providing approximate elevations, latitudes,
and longitudes. From these maps, we were able to obtain the elevation of Monument Peak in Milpitas.
With the aid of3D TopoQuads, a computer program that determines latitudes and longitudes using USGS maps,
we were able to detem~e the approximate latitudes and longitudes for: 1) the proposed barn, 2) the proposed
radio antenna, 3)the neigJabors antenna, and 4) Monument Peak, and map them. A "line of site" was then drawn
from Monument Peak to your neighbor’s house location. This can be seen in Exhibit 2 with a zoomed in view in
Exhibit 3.
144 North San Mateo Drive ¯ San Mateo, California 94401 ¯ (650) 344-9901 ¯ Fax: (650) 344-9920 ¯ www.freyeflaureta.com
Mr. Rick Kniss
Page 2 of 2
August 22, 2003
Findings:
As shown on Exhibit 3, your proposed barn and antenna pole do not fall horizomally within the "line of
sight" between your neighbor’s wireless communication antenna and the Sprint transmitter antenna atop
Monument Peak. In addition, the roofline of your proposed barn and short wave antenna pole are located
appro "ximately 47 feet and 23 feet, respectively, below your neighbor’s communication antenna elevation.
There is also an approximate angle of inclination from your neighbor’s communication antenna to monu-
ment peak (base of Sprint transmitter) of approximately 0.4°. This conservatively adds 2 feet of additional
clearance between the top of your antenna and the line of site.
See Table 1 below for approximate latitudes, lonNtudes, and elevations.
Table 1 - Approximate Latitude, Lon~tude, and Elevations
Description Latitude LonNmde Elevation
Barn Roofline Elevation
Maximum Short Wave Radio Antenna Elevation
Neighbor’s Communication Antenna Elevation
Monument Peak Elevation
37020’25"122°10’31"1808
37020’26"122°10’31’’1832
., o? ’9 "0’26"~7 _0.0 122°1 1855
37°29’05’’121051’59"2594
Conclusion
Your proposed barn and antenna have no impact, horizontally or verticall3; on the line of site between your
neighbor’s wireless communication anterma and the Sprint transmitter located atop Monument Peak in Milpitas.
Sincerely,
Freyer N Laureta, Inc.
Richard J. Laureta, P.E.
Vice President
Freyer N Laureta, Inc.
C ~lii
September 15, 2003
3885 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Attachment E
Palo Alto Department of Planning and
Attn: Steven Turner
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Community Environment
Steven,
This is a follow up letter to our previous written letter dated July 7, 2003,
summarizing our concerns about the proposed project at 3875 Page Mill Road.
We, the property owners of 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, take exception
to the current development plans for the adjacent property located at 3875 Page Mill
Road. Based on the Applying for Site & Design Review, City of Pa/o A/to process, we
believe the Department of Planning and Community Environment and the Open
Space Committee should address our concerns, as itemized below:
Item #1: Site Plan Issues
[la] Inaccurate Property Line:
Previously we requested the drawings be modified to accurately reflect the
property line. The drawings have been modified. However, there is no evidence a
licensed surveyor was used to determine the actual property line. Therefore, our
concern regarding the structure being too near or over the property line still remains.
In Any case, the proposed structure is too close to the property line.
Construction will irrevocably disrupt our property.
[lb] Owned Vegetation Impact (esp. Live Oaks) due to Inaccurate
Property Line Depiction:
We believe the adjoining property line between 3885 and 3875 Page Mill Road
is not correctly depicted on drawings in the application for this proposed project.
See Item [la]. Accurately depicting the property line will determine ownership of
protected vegetation and avoid future problems. For example, there is a large oak
tree in question we believe is on our property and may be negatively impacted by
the construction of this proposed project. This live oak was trimmed without our
permission. Although this unauthorized trimming was most likely done with the best
of intentions, we expect proper consideration in the future since the live oak in
question is on our property.
[lc] Driveway Easement:
We believe no easement has been granted to the current owner of 3875 Page
Mill Road that allows access to 3875 via our property at 3885 Page Mill Road. We do
not intend to grant such an easement for future access to 3875 Page Mill Road via
our property. We expect access to 3875 across our property cease immediately. As
a result of a previously worn pathway across our property, unauthorized vehicles
have been traversing our property to gain access to 3875. Broken bottles and litter
are now scattered on both properties.
[ld] Hazards:
The Page Mill Road curb cut created by the current owner of 3875 Page Mill
Road is a public nuisance and hazard. Further, this Page Mill Road curb cut has
created an illegal parking spot on a tight blind turn in the road next to our driveway
entrance. This is an unacceptable and dangerous situation, which needs attention.
Item #2: Property Value Impact
[2a] Serious Impact on Value of the "View Property":
We were unable to fully assess the impact because a white balloon was
attached to the top of the story poles to depict the 40-foot height of the proposed
Antenna Tower. The white balloon did not provide enough contrast for us to make
an assessment.
We believe our "view property" value will significantly decline as a result of
the construction of the proposed amateur radio Antenna Tower on 3875 Page Mill
Road. This Antenna Tower will visually impair our daytime and nighttime view of
the Silicon Valley. We request a high contrast colored balloon or an extension of the
existing story pole be placed in the location of the proposed Antenna Tower to
indicate height when fully extended in order for the Planning Commission to fully
understand our objection to this proposed project.
[2b] View Obstruction and Value of the "View Property":
We were unable to assess the impact of the Organic Farm, which includes
Fruit trees. No story poles are in place depicting the future mature height of the fruit
trees and the seven (7) foot high wire mesh fence surrounding the planned garden
and fruit trees.
[2c] View Obstruction-"
A letter from Mr. Kniss contained in the 3875 Project file on record with the
Planning Department states "The Project is not Ws/b/e from Page/v/i//Road or
Adjoining neighbors. " Unfortunately this is inaccurate. The structure is visible from
our property.
Item #3: Harmonious & Compatible with Adjoining Sites
[3a] Visual Pollution:
An amateur radio Antenna Tower proposed by the property owner of 3875
Page Mill Road which is 25 feet tall when retracted or not in use and 40 feet when
extended or in use is not harmonious and compat/b/e with existing or potent/a/ uses
of adjo/n/ng or nearby sites in this designated Open Space area. Additionally, it is
too close to the Page Mill setback. This will be a permanent visual eyesore for its
occasional use. The overall aesthetics of both properties will be severely
compromised.
[3b] Impact on Business and Livelihood:
Our profession and home businesses rely on high speed Internet access
provided by Sprint Broadband, which requires unobstructed line of site between the
Sprint facility and the roof of our home. There are no other services of this type
available in this neighborhood. The tower will potentially encumber our ability to
2
conduct business at our home by obstructing the signal path between the Sprint
facility and the roof of our home. Two businesses are conducted from our home and
William is expected to work out of our home on a full time basis for another
company.
Please Note: We strongly object to the amateur radio Antenna Tower and
respectfully request the Planning Commission and Open Space Committee to deny
the construction of such tower due to various negative impacts, i.e. property value,
visual pollution, and potential impact on our livelihood.
Item #4 Elevations and Site Cross-Sections:
[4a] Visual Impact:
We request a high contrast colored balloon be placed on the story pole
depicting the extended height of the proposed Antenna Tower. We also request
proper Story Poles be placed depicting the mature height of the planned fruit trees
and the seven (7) foot high wire mesh fence surrounding the planned garden and
fruit trees. Otherwise, the Planning Commission and Open Space Committee will not
be able to fully understand the visual impact issue.
[4b] Visual Impact:
We request further information regarding the proposed driveway and
retaining wall. What materials are being used to construct the retaining wall
including the ’Day Light’ wall? Inferior products will have a negative value and visual
impact on our property.
[4c] Access and Construction Impact
No permission is granted to disturb our property in anyway. No access or easement
is granted to the owner of 3875 across our property, for any purpose whatsoever.
We are obviously very concerned about this proposed project and related activity and
certainly want to be kept informed before any permanent framework is in place. We
remain concerned since the adjoining property line has been incorrectly depicted on
drawings in the application for this project, as detailed above.
Below is our contact information:
Sharon Luciw cell phone: 650-704-5485
Home phone number: 650-947-0134
Email:
stl uciw@ya hoo.com (’/Vote this ernai/ address has chanqed)
bill@foveastudios.com
Address:3885 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
(Note: the US Posta/ address is los A/tos /VOTPa/o A/to)
Please do not hesitate to contact us in regards to this matter. For your convenience,
attached is the previous letter sent to you dated July 7, 2003. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharon Luciw
William Luciw
Attachment Letter dated July 7, 2003
July 7, 2003
3885 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Palo Alto Department of Planning
Attn: Steven Turner
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
and Community Environment
Steven,
Here is the letter you requested summarizing our concerns about the proposed
project at 3875 Page Mill Road.
We, the property owners of 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, take exception
to the current development plans for the adjacent property located at 3875 Page Mill
Road. Based on the attached document, Ap/~/ying for Site & Z2es/gn t?ev/ew, City of
Pa/o~4/to, we believe the Department of Planning and Community Environment
should address our concerns, as itemized below:
Item #1: Site Plan Issues
[la] Inaccurate Property Line:
The plans contained in the file with the City of Palo Alto Planner, Steven
Turner, depict an incorrect property line. The plan shows the corner of the property
line connecting to the corner of our driveway at 3885 Page Mill Road. This is not
accurate. We request the drawings be modified to accurately reflect the property
line.
[lb] Inaccurate Drawings:
We also believe the proposed Antenna Tower and structure are substantially
on our property. This is completely unacceptable.
[lc ] Owned Vegetation Impact (esp. Live Oaks) due to Inaccurate
Property Line Depiction:
We believe the adjoining property line between 3885 and 3875 Page Mill Road
is not correctly depicted on drawings in the application for this proposed project.
See Item [la]. Accurately depicting the property line will determine ownership of
protected vegetation and avoid future problems. For example, there is a large oak
tree in question we believe is on our property and may be negatively impacted by
the construction of this proposed project. This live oak was trimmed without our
permission. Although this unauthorized trimming was most likely done with the best
of intentions, we expect proper consideration in the future since the live oak in
question is on our property.
[ld] Driveway Easement:
We believe no easement has been granted to the current owner of 3875 Page Mill
Road that allows access to 3875 via our property at 3885 Page Mill Road. We do not
intend to grant such an easement for future access to 3875 Page Mill Road via our
property.
[le ] Hazards:
The Page Mill Road curb cut created by the current owner of 3875 Page Mill
Road is a public nuisance and hazard. Further, this Page Mill Road curb cut has
created an illegal parking spot on a tight blind turn in the road next to our driveway
entrance. This is an unacceptable and dangerous situation, which needs attention.
Item #2: Property Value Impact
[2a] Serious Impact on Value of the "View Property":
We believe our "view property" value will significantly decline as a result of
the construction of the proposed amateur radio Antenna Tower on 3785 Page Mill
Road. This Antenna Tower will visually impair our daytime and nighttime view of
the Silicon Valley. We request Stow Poles be placed in the location of the proposed
Antenna Tower to indicate height when retracted and fully extended in order for the
Planning Commission to fully understand our objection to this proposed project.
Item #3: Harmonious & Compatible with Adjoining Sites
[3a] Visual Pollution:
An amateur radio Antenna Tower proposed by the property owner of 3875
Page Mill Road which is 25 feet tall when retracted or not in use and 40 feet when
extended or in use is not harmonious and compatible with existing or potential uses
of adjoining or nearby sites in this designated Open Space area. This will be a
permanent visual eyesore for its occasional use. The overall aesthetics of both
properties will be severely compromised.
[3b] Impact on Business and Livelihood:
Our profession and home businesses rely on high speed Internet access
provided by Sprint Broadband, which requires unobstructed line of site between the
Sprint facility and the roof of our home. There are no other services of this type
available in this neighborhood. The tower will potentially encumber our ability to
conduct business at our home by obstructing the signal path between the Sprint
facility and the roof of our home. Two businesses are conducted from our home and
William is expected to work out of our home on a full time basis for another
company.
Please Note: We strongly object to the amateur radio Antenna Tower and
respectfully request the Planning Commission to deny the construction of such tower
due to various negative impacts, i.e. property value, visual pollution, and potential
impact on our livelihood.
Item #4 Elevations and Site Cross-Sections:
[4a] Visual Impact:
Again, we request proper Stow Poles be placed (depicting retracted and
extended height) for the Planning Commission to fully understand the visual impact
we take issue with regarding the proposed Antenna Tower.
2
[4b] Construction Impact
We expect to be properly notified well in advance of any and all utility work
impacting our property. We also expect that our property be fully restored
immediately after any work is completed in said area. And expect the owner of 3875
will take on any liability for disruption of these utilities to our property of 3885 Page
Hill Road.
We are obviously very concerned about this proposed project and related activity and
certainly want to be kept informed before any permanent framework is in place. We
remain concerned since the adjoining property line has been incorrectly depicted on
drawings in the application for this project, as detailed above.
Below is our contact information:
Sharon Luciw cell phone:650-704-5485
Home phone number:650-947-0134
Email: sharon@foveastudios.com, bill@foveastudios.com
Address:3885 Page Mill Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
(Note: the US Posta/ address is los/~/tos/VOT Pa/o A/toJ
Please do not hesitate to contact us in regards to this matter.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharon Luciw
William Luciw
/~ttachrflent: "App/ying for Site & Design Review"
Attachment C
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
-MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center; 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin, Chair
Phyllis Cassel, Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Joseph Bellomo - absent
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Nellie Ancel, Assistant City Attorney
Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Steve Turner, Planner
Dave Dockter, City Arborist
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
3875 Page Mill Road
4261 El Camino Real
Approval of Minutes for August 27 Regular and Special Meetings
Chair Griffin: I’d like to call to order the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for
September 24, 2003. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
On our agenda the first topic I want to enter would be Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Chair Griffin: If you would prim your name on the speaker cards it helps with the pronunciation.
There are no cards. So we will move on down to New Business.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
Chair Griffin: I would like to open the public hearing on the first item under New Business
which is 3875 Page Mill Road which is an application for a Site and Design Review to allow
installation of an orchard and garden as an agricultural use, construction of a single-story
accessory structure of approximately 1,300 square feet and installation of a retractable amateur
radio antenna in the Open Space District. Could we have a Staff presentation on that please?
NEW B USINESS.
Public Hearings:
1.3875 Pa~e Mill Road% Application for a Site and Design Review to allow
installation of an orchard and garden as an agricultural use, construction of a single-
story accessory structure of approximately 1,300 square feet and installation of a
retractable amateur radio antenna. Zone District: Open Space (OS). Environmental
Assessment: a Negative Declaration has been prepared for public review and
comment. File Nos: 03-D-01, 03-EIA-09. SR Weblink:
http://www, citvol’paloalto, org/eitva,~enda/publish/plannin,g-transportatiot~-meetings/2434.pdl~
Mr. Steve Turner, Planner: Good evening Chairman Griffin and Commissioners. Staff
recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the
Negative Declaration and Site and Design Review to the City Council based upon the Site and
Design findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B.
Commissioners, as described in the Staff Report the project site is a ten acre parcel in the Open
Space Zone District located approximately three miles west of the entrance to Foothills Park on
Page Mill Road. The site is currently undeveloped and contains wide areas of grasslands, oaks,
chaparral and other shrubs. The site also contains a 200-foot scenic easement as measured from
Page Mill Road. A single-family residence is located adjacent to the subject property to the
north.
The Los Trancos Open Space Preserve is located opposite the property on Page Mill Road. The
site looks out over unincorporated Santa Clara County lands and although the Mid Peninsula
Regional Open Space District lands are in the proximity of the general area few if any views of
the site can be seen from these areas.
It is the applicant’s intent for the site to be an agricultural use of a non-commercial nature
including an orchard and raised planting beds. Accessory to this use would be a 1,277 square
foot accessory structure containing a toilet, sink, storage and living areas. A covered porch is
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
also included as part of the design. An excavated area under the structure will be used for
equipment and storage.
Finally, an antenna structure is proposed for the site. This would be a retractable antenna
structure for amateur radio operations. When retracted the antenna would be approximately 26
feet high, when extended it is expected to be approximately 40 feet high. An antenna will be
attached to the structure and the applicant has provided information regarding the antenna to this
meeting. I have those photos available for you to see.
The plans in your packet show the proposed development including access from Page Mill Road,
a driveway and parking areas of pervious materials, a pedestrian pathway leading down to the
orchard and plans for the accessory building and the location for the proposed orchard and
garden. The significant issues related to this application are detailed in your Staff Report. Those
include visibility and aesthetics, lighting, landscaping and oak tree protection. In the Staff
Report the open space development criteria and site and design findings are also detailed in
Attachment B. This concludes the Staff Report. The applicant is here to make a presentation
and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Would the applicant care to step forward and make a presentation? You will have
15 minutes. Welcome.
Mr. John Northway, 437 Lytton Avenue. Palo Alto: Thank you. I am the architect for the
applicant. Basically as you know we had a properly noticed site visit last week so I will not
elaborate too much more on what we went through up at the site. The site does have story polls
that show the size of the building and shows the location and approximate height of the antenna.
I think it is important on this project to keep in mind the scale. This is a ten-acre site. The
allowable site coverage at 3.5% is 15,071 square feet. That is the amount of developable
impermeable surface area that could be developed on that site. What this applicant is asking for
is 1,243 square feet. That is about 8.25% of the total he would be al!owed to develop if he
wanted to develop the whole thing. This is a very, very small and hopefully very sensitive
approach to using a very nice piece of land. That is what Mr. Kniss is trying to do.
The building is not a commercial structure. It is a small barn and storage structure that will
allow Mr. Kniss to store materials that he needs to use to work on his orchard and his vegetable
garden and a place to get out of the sun, a small bathroom there are only two plumping fixtures
because it is an accessory structure and only two are allowed. If you count the area, because it is
on a sloping site, it is approximately two stories in height but well underneath the height limit
that is allowed out there. The building materials I gave to Steven a board that you also saw out
at the site. It is all natural wood cedar siding and cedar shake materials. So it is really an
attempt to do a very simple structure. Mr. Kniss likes very much the kind of simple farm
structures that appear throughout the Foothills and throughout the foothills of California. The
building is oriented so that there can be a covered porch that overlooks the view of the Santa
Clara Valley. It is a very simple structure it is meant to be that way. It is not meant to be
anything other than what it is, a place to get out of the sun, have a bathroom where you can get a
little cleaned up after working in the garden and a place where in the early morning and late
evening he can work with his ham radio operation. This is a design that the applicant feels very
good about. It is simple and it is what he would like to execute.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 3
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
The structure cannot be seen from any public space. It cannot be seen from Page Mill Road. If
you want to see it you would have to trespass on either Mr. Kniss’s property or a little bit of the
neighbor’s property. As requested by our meeting on the site I have given Steven three copies of
a photograph that shows a typical ham radio antenna that would be the same as what Mr. Kniss is
attempting to get approval to install tonight. Part of that photograph is a telephone pole, which
gives you some sort of sense of scale of how this antenna feels to a telephone pole. I am
available for any questions you may have and I know Jean McCown has a few words to say, as
does Mr. Kniss.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John. Could we have Rick Kniss if you would care to address us?
Mr. Rick Kniss~ 1985 Cowper Street. Palo Alto: Yes, hi. I just wanted to comment a little bit
about my intent on the project. When I acquired the land about three years ago I was struck by
the beauty of the land and actually had been looking for some time to find land that didn’t have a
big house on it because I was looking for some open space to be able to enjoy that was relatively
close to where we live. So my whole intent from the first time, from the get-go, in purchasing
this property was to really keep it very natural, keep it very much an open space, try and do as
little as possible in the development of the property. A couple of hobbies that I have had
basically since I was a boy one was gardening, I used to garden a lot with my dad and enjoyed
that very much and have done some gardening not too successfully in our City lot and am
looking forward to the possibility of having some raised beds and fruit trees and experimenting
with organic gardening in this area. It is a nice microclimate, it gets very good sun, not too much
fog. The soil is kind of a challenge but the raised beds I will bring in soil for vegetables and
what I plan to plant there. For the fruit trees of course I would change the soil where you would
put the proper soil around the root ball in order to involve the fruit trees to do well.
I need a structure to store supplies and get of the sun and rain and so on, get out of the weather.
That is the purpose of the accessory barn. It is actually 18 by 30 it is about the smallest practical
size given construction costs that we can put up there.
The other thing that was mentioned before by John is my desire to put up a modest ham radio
antenna. This is something that is a hobby I have been interested in since I was 15. This is a
modest antenna. I don’t believe it is visible from Page Mill or any public areas. It would only be
used occasionally and when it is not being used which is probably over 90% of the time or more
it would be lowered to around 25 feet. I think it is a very modest project but it is what I want to
do. I really want to have this open space available for my family’s enjoyment and my grandkids.
Hopefully as they grow up they will enjoy going there. I know it is kind of an unusual project.
Everyone is talking about mega houses these days I guess mine is the reverse of that where I
actually do want to have something, which is very modest, and in keeping with I think the beauty
of the Foothills and to try and preserve that as much as I can. So that is my intent. Thank you.’
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Mr. Kniss. Our next speaker is Jean McCown.
Ms. Jean McCown. 527 Seale Avenue. Palo Alto: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the
Commission. You have at your places a letter that I prepared to simply make sure that in the
record you were able to respond to some questions and issues that were raised by the immediate
neighbor. We believe those had actually previously been responded to in the materials in your
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Staff Report but I thought it was clearer to actually go through the points. I won’t repeat them
here with the exception that I do want to point out as I do in here that Mr. Kniss did go to the
step of checking out whether there could be any possible interference of the antenna structure,
his ham radio structure in the barn, with the broadband service that the neighbor apparently is
receiving at their home. You have a letter in your packet from an engineer that went out and
looked at the topography and figured out what the elevations were, figured out that there would
not be a line of sight impact on the neighbor.
As Rick just said there is sort of a categorization question here I think. The typical Open Space
District application that has come to the Commission over the years has been for a residential
use, a house. This is not that so it needs to get put into some other category and given the
mixture of the orchard, garden, agricultural use the associated barn and the ham radio antenna
the categorization that the Staff felt was most appropriate which obviously we think makes sense
as well is to characterize this as an agricultural use with a accessory facility.
I wanted to comment on the letter from Herb Borock that you have tonight about the suggestion
that this is a communications facility. A ham radio antenna is not a communications facility as
our code defines that. So I don’t think the suggestion that this also would need a use permit
would be appropriate in this circumstance. Herb also asked a question about the curb cut. That
is also something that in the Staff Report is not precisely correct. The Staff Report says there
will need to be a new curb cut for the location of the driveway. That is not the case. The curb
cut that you saw up there is the curb cut. That was granted as an encroachment permit by the
City in 2000 after Mr. Kniss bought the property. That was determined both on a prior
application as well as again now to be the location where a driveway access is permitted onto
this parcel. There is a final subdivision map that shows that location as a permissible location to
onto the parcel. As I point out in the letter it is unfortunate that the original intent of a shared
driveway wasn’t accomplished for whatever reason over the passage of time, changed
circumstance but the fact is this is a safe and legal way for the parcel to be accessed and that is
why the curb cut location that exists there today is the one that will be used for the driveway.
We are all obviously available to answer any other questions that the Commission may have.
Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Jean.
Ms. McCown: Mr. Griffin I also assume there is the standard opportunity to respond if there is
anything new that comes up from any other comments. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Before I give Commissioners an opportunity to question the applicant and Staff I
am noticing that this item is a quasi-judicial item subject to the Council’s disclosure policy. So if
any of you would like to disclose anything now is the time to do that. I will start with Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I joined the other Commission members at the site visit that was publicly
noticed.
Commissioner Holman: Ditto.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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: As did I. Thank you Commissioners. Now if we have any questions for Staff or
the applicant we can commence. I don’t see anybody asking a question so I shall. I am
wondering back to Herb Borock’s letter and the discussion of the communications tower being a
facility. Can you give us a little background on that please?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: We have not considered antennas for private use to be
communication facilities. We consider commercial antennas to be communication facilities. So
those that are proposed by Nextel and organizations like that have been considered
communication facilities not private antennas. So we have not required conditional use permits
for private antennas.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have sort of a legal question. Do the plans become part of the
conditions that are attached? Is it specifically referred to so that everything that is on the plans
that we are looking at today are part of the conditions and would run with whatever it is we
would be granting?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. They are part of the approval and they are specifically referenced in
the conditions.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I thought we were going to see a model tonight of this. Is this what we saw
in the picture or were the developers actually bringing in a model of the antenna we are going to
see?
Ms. Grote: I don’t believe there is a model. I believe the pictures are part of the submittal
package. They were entered into the record tonight and I believe we have additional
photographs here that we can also distribute that are part of the record.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to see the photographs and perhaps the owner of the property or
Mr. Northway could explain this antenna in a little more detail.
Chair Griffin: I would like to expand a bit on Phyllis’s question. The photograph that was
submitted this evening is interesting. I am wondering whether or not there is some dimensional
information that would apply to this antenna. I am presuming by looking at it that it is
something like 30 feet by 30 feet of a typical short-wave rod array that is common. It would be
interesting to know what the dimensions are in fact in terms of 30 feet by 30 feet or whatever.
To carry on even further I would like to know how that fits in with the oak tree canopy up there.
We didn’t have the opportunity, as you folks remember, we did not see what the fully extended
height of the antenna was during our site visit. I would like a little discussion on that if we
could.
Ms. Grote: As far as the dimensions are concerned of the antenna the applicant is probably best
able to address that. The maximum height would be 40 feet. I understand that the balloon was
not elevated during your site visit but the maximum height is 40 feet and that is called out in the
conditions. There is also a condition that requires the antenna to be lowered when it is not in
use. So it would be 25 feet roughly in height.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Mr. Kniss would you like to help us with some of this please?
Mr. Kniss: Just to give you a little idea this is an antenna that I found in Los Altos, which is
similar. I think it is actually a higher structure than what I am proposing. I am guessing this is
probably 50 or 60 feet but it gives you an idea. The supporting structure, the pole, is like a
retractable flagpole. It is a circular steel structure with several sections that telescope in when it
is lowered. The antenna size itself, there are various sizes and it could be 20 by 20, pick 30 by
30 that is probably on the large side. It depends on the frequency band for the antenna. I believe
and I have looked at this quite carefully I believe certainly when it is retracted I think it is well
screened by the oak trees. It is my opinion in looking at the balloons over several occasions and
looking at the oak canopy that it would also be well screened from Page Mill even when it is
elevated. As I pointed out before this is only going to be used occasionally and I would guess
that well over 90% of the time it is going to be in the retracted position and well screened by the
oak trees. Any other questions?
Vice-Chair Cassel: This may sound silly. I am presuming that you are meaning 30 inches by 30
inches.
Mr. Kniss: No, 30 feet by 30 feet. But remember it is a relatively light structure. It is aluminum
tubing relative small aluminum tubing. It looks like a large TV antenna.
Chair Griffin: Like a clothesline.
Mr. Kniss: Probably not quite that complicated but typically there are three or four cross pieces
and it is made out of aluminum. I think if you look at the picture you can get an idea as to what
it looks like. At a distance I think it does blend in well but the most important thing is the siting
has been done so that it is well screened.
Commissioner Holman: I have question. If it is 30 feet by 30 feet and it is lightweight I
presume because there was a conversation up there about tree removal and there wouldn’t be any
tree removal.
Mr. Kniss: That is correct.
Commissioner Holman: This would not necessitate any tree removal.
Mr. Kniss: No it would not. In fact my intent is to try and keep all of the trees basically on the
property. It is very important to me to keep the trees.
Chair Griffin: The antenna structure would in fact encroach on the 200 foot Page Mill scenic
setback though would it not?
Mr. Kniss: Well let’s see I think it might overhang.
Chair Griffin: Another question that occurs is if the mast is going to be telescoped up and down
which I understand there does have to be an opening sufficiently big for this antenna array to be
erected and come down again without touching any of the adjacent branches and whatnot. I did
not take a look at it in that kind of detail when we were on our site visit.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Kniss: It is actually pretty open in that area. The tall trees are a little further up the hill.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: In the Open Space District it is possible for people to put television
antennas on top of their homes above the height limit. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. We have a 15-foot allowance for that, so that is 15 feet over the 25-
foot height limit so that is a total of 40 feet. So yes, that is allowed.
Chair Griffin: Any more questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: One for Staff. Mr. Borock refers to dedication of a one-foot wide non-
access strip along the frontage of Page Mill. I didn’t know what that was about. Can you
comment on that?
Ms. Grote: We don’t have further information about that. The driveway is in a previously
approved location but I do not have further information about the one-foot access strip.
Commissioner Holman: Also on our site visit the idea of solar collectors and water collectors
came up. Has the applicant since that site visit given any further consideration of those
environmental possibilities?
Mr. Northwa~/: Mr. Kniss being a very good engineer had actually looked at all these
possibilities and to give you just a straightforward answer right now he really does not want to
put photovoltaic on the roof because of the way they look and any reflective aspects to them.
And quite frankly because electrical service is available and the price of Palo Alto electricity is
so low it basically in the cost/benefit ratio at this point doesn’t make any sense. He is not
opposed to putting photovoltaic at a later date should they become more cost effective if that is
done it would probably be done on a ground level installation so that they wouldn’t be reflective
on the roof and of course they would have to be brought through the City process because of the
Site and Design District. We don’t think cistems actually make any sense at all in that particular
location because the time the cisterns would fill up would be when it is pouring rain and there is
no need really to save water. During the nine months that it doesn’t rain the cisterns probably
would dry up. So that doesn’t at this point seem to make a lot of sense. They were looked at,
they were evaluated and they were not deemed feasible to do right now.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Lisa, I slightly misspoke in Mr. Borock’s reference. It is a non-access strip
but in any event he refers to I believe the parcel approval map or preliminary parcel approval
map from 1978. Did Staff dig up that old documentation as we were reviewing this process?
Ms. Grote: We did not since it was not affecting lot configuration or access to the parcel. So we
did not look up the original subdivision approved in 1978 since there was no proposed change to
that.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Ms. McCown.
Ms. McCown: If you would entertain on this we did look at that originally when we helped Rick
buy the property and I do have a small copy of the final map. The non-access strip basically on
the map is shown as designed to essentially constrain to only one location where the driveway
entrance on this parcel could be as well as the adjoining parcel. They are sort of jammed right
next to each other on either side of the property line. So it looks like the goal of that was not to
leave other potential places for a driveway to enter onto the parcels but to define where the two
driveways could be and they would need to be close to each other so that obviously you didn’t
have lots of separated curb cuts. That is the way I read the map that we looked at, at the time we
bought the property.
Chair Griffin: I have a question relating to the agricultural aspect or the gardening and orchard
aspects of this project. During the site visit I couldn’t help but remark, as you have tonight Mr.
Kniss, that gardening on that site is probably going to be challenge. It seemed to be quite steep
in some places exceptionally so and rocky. I am wondering about the viability of orchards and
fruit trees and whatnot. Perhaps before you comment I would be interested in talking a little to
Staff here perhaps the City Arborist could discuss just briefly a little bit about what might be
entailed in trying to grow a small orchard on that site. I hope I am not putting you too much on
the spot.
Mr. Dave Dockter, Arborist: Your specific question was on how things would grow? Could you
clarify?
Chair Griffin: Of course. The viability of a small orchard being able to really survive in that
what I consider to be rocky environment.
Mr. Dockter: Certainly survival would always depend it is entirely possible to create some
growing conditions for plants and trees to grow. Careful selection of trees and planting
materials. The mention of planting beds and just actually how to plant them would have to be
carefully done and with amendments in the rocky soil. It is a shallow rocky area. Some things
grow better than others in that California dry climate. So it would have to be relatively carefully
controlled in the planting and the aftercare and the continual maintenance of the vegetation.
Chair Griffin: Would you say that there is a deer problem in that part of the Open Space
District? Is that something that would have to be addressed in your opinion?
Mr. Dockter: Of course in this Open Space area I believe that there was deer protection
indicated. That certainly would make sense in order to ensure things do continue growing there.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Would the applicant care to discuss this at all?
Mr. Kniss: I think Mr. Dockter said it well. There are really two aspects to the planting. One if
the raised beds, which would allow the addition of good soil and would also allow the beds to be
put pretty much with a contour. Below the barn structure the land is actually quite flat. There is
not much slope there at all. That is why we picked that spot. It is a good sunny spot and it is
relatively flat so that is good for the planning beds. Then the trees need to have careful selection
and care naturally so that they will prosper. It is shown that there are lots of deer in the area so
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
you have to have deer fencing which we would propose to put just around the planted areas.
That is on the plan.
Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions for Staff or the applicant at this time I would like
to give the oppommity to Sharon Luciw to address the Commission. Sharon you will have five
minutes.
Ms. Sharon Luciw, 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto: I am the owner of 3885 Page Mill Road,
the neighbor of 3875. One of the concerns that we still had was the property line. The reason
being the first drawing from the architect it was depicted incorrectly and then in the second one it
was changed. Since I understand that they have done a couple of surveys but I looked through
the file and I didn’t see the evidence of that. So I am concerned that that property line still is not
depicted properly on the latest drawings.
Chair Griffin: Do you have any other comments?
Ms. Luciw: At this time we are concerned that the parking or the driveway or the structure
might be too close so that when they construct those items they would crossover our property.
Chair Griffin: Would Staff care to address this about the surveying of the properties at all? Is
that something we have information on?
Ms. Grote: Our understanding is they have done a survey they did correct the plans. The
applicant may want to speak to that as well. The plans have been corrected to show the property
line.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am not sure this is the right time to ask this but don’t surveys to be
formal have to be filed?
Ms. Grote: If there is a question about a property line the survey would be required and filed
during the building permit application and review.
Chair Griffin: John, would you care to address this issue?
Mr. Northway: Yes it was surveyed by a licensed surveyor working through [Freyer & Loretta],
civil engineers. Quite frankly I will give my card to the neighbors and we are more than happy
to send them a copy of it.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for that. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question for our attorney. It is my understanding that when we
review these things we are not passing judgment on any real property disputes that may exist
between the neighbors. Could we make that clear that we are looking at approving the building
of a structure and we are not giving any opinions about the ownership rights of the various
parties?
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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. Nellie Ancel. Assistant City Attorney: I think you stated it correctly. I was going to say
something along those lines that the property line is relevant in terms of the placement of things
whether they are setback enough but it is really an issue between the two private property owners
and not something that we are involved in.
Chair Griffin: Would the applicant like to make any closing comments? I have no other cards
here so there are no other speakers. If the applicant has any wrap-up comments now is the
appropriate time. Okay.
At this stage I am going to close the public hearing and open the discussion here on the desk for
Commissioners.
Commissioner Burt: If other Commissioners have no more questions of Staff I am prepared to
make a motion.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I do have questions for Staff. The drawings don’t indicate what the
materials are and the colors are. The conditions of approval don’t specify the building material
colorations either. I am wondering if Staff could comment on that and the fact that we don’t
have any kind of drawing for the antenna structure.
Mr. Turner: You are correct. The plans don’t indicate the colors or the specific stains that would
be used on the buildings. The applicant has provided a sample board at tonight’s meeting that
would be contained in the file and would be referenced with the most recent revised plans that
are contained in the file that are referenced in the conditions of approval. So Staff would use
those plans and the color board submitted at this meeting to compare what is ultimately
constructed on the building.
Commissioner Holman: Then also there isn’t any visual or no drawings for the antenna
structure. Is Staff comfortable with that?
Mr. Turner: Staff is most concerned with the location of the antenna and the views of the
antenna. The materials that the applicant provided in terms of the photographs satisfy Staff in
terms that there are few impacts for visibility for the antenna. So we don’t necessarily need to
see elevations of a retracted or extended antenna on the plans.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just have one question that reflects a slight concern. At the public site
visit it was told to us that one of the reasons we are calling this an accessory structure is that is
affects the type of Fire Department access that would be required. I am looking over the actual
conditions of approval, the document that would be adopted by the City Council, and it does say
it would be an accessory structure, which by implication implies that it is not a residence. I
wondered if you think it would be appropriate to add something that says that this will not be
used as a residence just to state the obvious and make it very clear that in the future that the
building here is intended to be used for storage and daytime occupancy and not a residence.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Mr. Turner: Placing that condition as part of the conditions of approval would be appropriate
and we can make that revision.
Chair Griffin: Just to carry on with that for a moment is it a reasonable sort of thing to undertake
enforcement? How does one enforce that type of provision?
Mr. Turner: Well Staff responds to code enforcement complaints on a case-by-case basis. We
have an interested party in the neighbor at the next door, we don’t want to rely on that neighbor
for code compliance but we would review the project for its final during the building permit
process to make sure everything is okay. We are not proposing a schedule of continual condition
monitoring up at the site. Those types of things we again would respond to on a case-by-case
basis if we received a complaint or a question in from a member of the public.
Chair Griffin: Considering that this is in some respects a two-story house if you look at it from
the downhill side and looking at that 24 foot front elevation facing the canyon what would be
involved with the applicant pursuing a straight ahead house application as opposed to proposing
the house as a secondary structure or accessory building to this agricultural use? Do you follow
the gist of what I am trying to get at here?
Mr. Turner: Yes. The application is for an accessory structure the definition of basically a
single-family dwelling is that we look for evidence of a kitchen in the building. That to us starts
to define a single-family structure. If that came through for say a building permit we would have
to divert the application for a full Site and Design Review to allow a single family dwelling on
the site. From what I am aware of the conditions for the Fire Department is that there would be
required more fire access to the site than what is up there now. With the proposed development
the access to the site meets Fire Department regulations. If a single family dwelling were
proposed for the site there would need to be a greater amount of access, a wider turning radius
for emergency vehicles to access the site. So there would be a whole level of review not only by
Planning but by other departments once we get wind or get a proposal for a single family
dwelling up at the site.
Chair Griffin: Even with a new fire hydrant being required on the property there would still be
additional fire code regulations that would have to be satisfied?
Mr. Turner: Yes there could be any number of requirements that the Fire Department may have.
All buildings west of 280 are required to be sprinklered including accessory buildings but any
sort of expansion of this building or any change of use, again if we see a kitchen or kitchen
facilities coming in that to us would trigger a more extensive review by not only Planning but
other departments including Fire.
Chair Griffin: Pat, I guess it is time for your motion.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I would like to move that the Commission recommend approval of the
negative declaration in the Site and Design Review based upon site and design findings and
subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Do I have a second?
Commissioner Bialson: Will you add to it the condition that was modified slightly by Bonnie?
Commissioner Burt: That would be acceptable.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: I will second the motion then.
Chair Griffin: Would you wish to restate your motion then please, Mr. Maker.
Commissioner Burt: You think it is necessary to restate it? All right. The entire thing? Bonnie
would you state your recommended additional condition?
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Packer: Yes. This would be a friendly amendment to you motion that in the
conditions of approval that it be clearly stated that the accessory structure is not to be used as a
residence at any time.
Commissioner Burt: I accept it as stated by Commissioner Packer.
So just briefly to comment on it, I think the Commission has reviewed several important related
issues that have been raised I think in a broad sense I am pleased that we have on a ten acre site a
very modest proposal that is alternative to what a property owner by right could have pursued of
a very large structure. It is not our prerogative to have this type of project imposed on all
property owners up there but I think it is welcome as an alternative to a very large structure that
could be applied for and given the other mitigations that have been made by the applicant I think
it is an appropriate use.
Commissioner Bialson: I concur with Pat’s comments. We have gone through this project and
this will be the second meeting we have on it and I think we have assured ourselves hopefully
that this an appropriate use for the property and is actually a very desirable one given what the
property could be used for otherwise.
Commissioner Packer: I agree with what has been said I also would like to use this time as an
opportunity to thank Staff and all those who were involved for arranging the site visit as a public
event. I think it is a good model for future reviews of other projects.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think we have done enough discussing.
Commissioner Holman: Yes I concur with everything that has been said to this point. I also
wanted to thank the applicant for voluntarily doing story poles because that was very, very
helpful on the site visit.
AMENDMENT
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I did want to offer one friendly amendment just to make us consistent. To make condition of
approval number two conform with condition of approval number five in that number two
doesn’t say that the materials should be earth tone and color to blend with the natural
environment. I know that is the intention but I think the language should reflect that. So would
the maker of the motion accept that amendment?
Commissioner Burt: Yes and it is my understanding that the applicant has no problem with that
as well so yes I would.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: Yes.
Commissioner Holman: Just one last thank you to the applicant. I know that is your intention
but as this goes down the line I just think for consistency of review I think it is important to have
this in writing. So thank you.
Chair Griffin: I think my final comments are that I concur with my colleagues. I would have felt
more comfortable if there had been more attention to detail on the antenna mast. If we had been
able to have a better representation of exactly what that really is going to look like when it is in
its fully erected position. I am satisfied that the rest of the conditions have been properly met so
I am prepared to bring this to a vote.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Bellomo absent)
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? With the exception of Commissioner Bellomo who
is absent the matter passes.
Now I am going to open the public hearing on our second item of New Business, 4261 E1
Camino Real which is an application for a Zone Change from Low Density Multiple Family
Residential to Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District and Service Commercial with
Hotel Combining District and Landscape Combining District furthermore a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial
Hotel and a Conditional Use Permit to allow vehicular access drives and circulation within the
Landscape Combining District. Could we have a Staff presentation please?
4262 El Camino Real’~: Application for a Zone Change from Low Density Multiple
Family Residential (RM-15) to Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District
(CS(H)) and Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District and Landscape
Combining District (CS(H)(L)); a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel; a
Conditional Use Permit to allow vehicular access drives and circulation within the
Landscape (L) Combining District. Environmental Assessment: a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for public review and comment. City Files: 02-ZC-02,
03-CPA-04, 03-UP-16, 03-EIA-08. SR Weblink:
City of Palo Alto Page 14