HomeMy WebLinkAbout0249.095!'
TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PIonning and
Community Environ men.
AGENDA DATE: May 15, 1m CMR:149:95
SUBJECT:
REQUEST
Appeals ofZ<lDlIIg AdmiDlstrator Approval .IVariaDce '4-V-U
at 1475 StaDford AvoIDe, Palo Alto, Callforai.
This report addresses tw" appecls of the Z<lnlng Admirjstrator's d..-cisiOil 10 approve
• Variance, with cooditioos, to allow a new twOostOf) single-family bouse with the 1i'ont
porch 16 feet and the wall of the bouse 21 feet fum the street side property line
(Stan lOrd AvO!lue), where I 25,foot special setback is otherwise required.
The appIicwl, future owner of the properly, and project arcbite.;t appealed the decision
because they believe the additional fOur feet (i,e, • setback of 21 feet from Stanford
Avenue where 25 f<et is required) is not enoogb 10 design a COOlfurtable bouse that
meets contemporary needs, and tbat the original .equest 10 allow the front edge of the
poo:h 10 come as close as 6 feet 10 the side property line. and the edge of the bouse 10
come IS close as 1 1 feet 10 the side property rme, is reasonable and not out of croaracler
,.ith the rest of the neighborhood.
A neighbor filed • separate appeall>ased "" the beL"f that ille 4-foot intrusion granted
by the Zoning Administrator €or the wall of Ibe main bouse and the additional S feet
granted for the front porcb was 100 much and would result in • setback out of cl-.aracter
with the surrounding area. He believes the aPP«>"al granted by the Zooing
Administra!{)l" ",ill result in eroded development standards, and additional traffic,
parking. safety and noIse problems.
RECOMMEl!IllATfONS
Staff R!lf!!!!!!!!e!J!tion;
Staff 2nd the Planning C<>mmissioo recommend Ibar the City CounciJ deny the appeals
and uphold !he Zoning Administrator 3p;lCOVal of a variance I<> allow a new two-story
single-family bouse with the front edge of. porc"-16 feet and the wall of the house 21
C_~:9S
feet from the street side proper!)' line (Stanfod Aveoue), wbere a 2S !OO( special
seIbacl is otherwise required.
The P1l1l111ing COOImissioo further recommends that an additional condition requiring
1he house 10 be reviewed by !he Atl:bill>c!ural Review Board be added 10 the cooditioos
of approVal. Although Ibis is an UDU3ual condition 10 atta<:b to • single-family bouse.
staff has 00 objection 10 it. given 1he sensitive nature ""d 1iIllO',m1 of nelghlxx'..rod
con=1l reganfing Ihl. application.
POYCV L"dfUCATIONS
There is one City policy !hal is reIt\'lUl! 10 tlli. application. Policy I in 1he Housing
E1emcnt of the exisliog Comr.rehettslve Plan states that the City should; "MaintAin the
general1ow-clensity character of existing single-fL'1liIy areas." This ~y is further
txpre-ssed as a sa ofR-1 design guidelines for single-family houses. These guidelines
belp assure that new development is compatible with sWTound"mg developmenl The
proposed bouse, with the modified setbatlr. as approved by the Zoning Adm1~istrator,
maintains the single-family cb.atacter of tile neighborllood 10 a greater degree than the
original tmderlying lotting pattern would have allowed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tabl" I swnmarizes 1he required speciBJ se1ba<ok, 1he appliC8/1t's original proposal and
the Zoning Administrator's modified approval. The alta<:bed Planning C<>mmission staff
report provides IDOR d<:ta!1 about the original proposal, the modified approval granted
by 1he Zoning Administrator and the appeals received from the applicant and nelghbot.
R09Ulred Special Setback
2$ feet lOr an
buildings
Table I
Applicanfs
Ori ginal Prooosa!
6 feet -Porch
II feet -House
Summary of Planning Comrolssion Hearing:
( ;
Zoning Administrator 9 s
Modified A!!PM'al
15 feet -Porch
21 feet -Hou ....
The Planning Commission beard the appeals of this item on April 26, 1995. Meeting
m;nu!es are included in the May IS, 1995 packet for Cily Cooncil ink<m.tion.
The applicantIappellllIll spoke against !he variance granted by the Zoning Administrator,
because be believes 1!laI the amount granted is DOl ellOOgh to accommodate a ",en-
,\,"
. ..
'-:-"
:-' :--'-
desiBJiCd I!ou3e 00 !he sile. He maintair>.s that there are twenty houses in the
ndghbodlood that encroach into setbacks to SOII'~ degree and that he would be willing
10 compromise and have the I!ou3e redesigne<l so thaI the wall of the bouse would be
IocaIed 16 feet from the side property line. This would be S feet further into Ille special
:setback than app<O\ied by the Zoning Administrator and P1anni.~g Coollnhsioo. Six
pc»ple spoke in support of the applicantiappenanCs position and stated tbat the bouse
had been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and that many other houses
already encroacb into front or side setbacks. An >dditiooal letter in support of the
opplicant's original proposal was read into the record, because the writer could roO!
atIe!>d the meeting.
The neighborhooll appellant spot. agairoSt the \-ari= grante<l by the Zoolng
Administrator, because be believes 1he site does not have excep!iooal or extraordinary
drcumstan<:es that warrant • ..-ian« epprovol. He does no! believe I hardship exists Of!
the site and believes it cooId be adeq1la!ely developed witbi!l the existing constraints.
He beooes that • bouse built acwcding to the variance approval would be out of
cbaraCter wilh the neighborbood. He also objeas to the variance approval based 00
InIfIk. parting. noise. and safety concerns and referenced his January 19, 1995 letter
to Ibe Zoning Administrato< foe furthe. documentation. Six people spok.e ;n support of
!he neighborhood appellant'S position and added coocems Ihirt the Certificate of
CQmpf= (C of C) process used to create the three lots runs contrary to the in!<mt of
the Palo Alto Municipal Cod<: and the Subdivision Map Act. Several neighbor.; also
raised obje<:tioos to • developer using the variance process and stated that variances
should be granted only 10 people woo live in Il1e neighborbood and participate in
neighbomood events.
There was cooscnsus 00 the Plaruting Commission that the app!i<:anl's origloal variance
requ.:st would result in a setback OU! of character wilb the surrounding neighborbood.
Individual C<>mm.issioners Stated !hal the question was v.1lat COIlJpromise, if any, would
be reasonable. in Iigl!t of the fact !hal the lot in qu.."SIioo bas its side property rme along
Stanford A venue, which has • special sethack requirement After discllSSion of the
th= variance fin<fmgs as outlined in Il1e attached Planning Commission staff report, the
Commission supported staff's assessment ofa 2 I-fool setback fOr the wan of the bouse.
in line ",ith existing buildings along Stanford Avenue. They recommend that the City
OJ<:ncll ckny the appeals and uphold the Zoolng Administrato< decision. with an
additional condition requiring Ihe bouse '" be reviewed by the Architectural RevieW
Bo",d.
FISCAL fMfACT
There is IlO fiscal impact to the City of Palo Aho from ""-y of the alternatives.
ENYIRQNML"ffAl. ASSF45MJ).i
The project is exempt from review under the Colifomja Enyironmcnlal Quality AcI,
ucder Section 15303 (Class 30) of the Stale CEQA Guidelines.
AUACHMENTS
I. Planning C<Immissloo staff report dated April 26, 1995, With attacru"e.-.ts:
L Letter from Mark Migdai dllted November 14, 1994
1>. Zooing Administralttclecisioo dated February 2, 1995
e. Letters of appeal !Tom Mark Migdal and lrot! Taylor and James Tay10r
S!roupe dated Februlll)' 13 W 9,1995. 'cspecUve!y
d. Letter of oppeaI from Robin Clark dated February 12. 1995
~. Minutes from the Janumy 19. 1995 Zooing Administrator Hearing
f. Lett .... in Opposition to Project (13 ktters)
g. Letters in Suppcn of Projoct ( S letters)
h. Letters Received ofter the Zooing Administrator Hearing
2. Additiooal pbocograpbs submitted by Mark Migdal
4. Letters R<c:eived after the Planning Commissi<>n HeMing (14 letters)
S. Plans [Coun..--iJ Members only}
PREPARED BY, Lisa Grote. Zoning Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW, ..L~l/d £.d1A~g
KENNETH R SCHREIBER
Directoc of Planning and
CommUnity Environment
CITY MA1IIAGER APPROVAl:~
S JNY
. AsslStant. .ger
cc: Mr. Mar\: Migdal, 1415 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. William Ress, Ross and Scott, 520 Sotroh Grand Avenue. Suite 300,
Los Angeles, CA 90071·26Hl
Ms. C. Frankfurt, 2109 Colu..'tIblll Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. ROOm auk, 2025 C"lumbia St.-eet, Palo Alto, CA 94J03
Ms. Kathleen Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, Palo Alto, CA 94>06
"'" hI 5
, ~C . '
-... : ...... -.
•
".
•
Mr. Leon Tayloe, 2.35 2h! Stred, s.m Fr:mc~, CA 94116
Ms. Susan Rooenberg. 116 Mopl. Street, Conway, MA 01341
Mr. John and Ms. Msri:za FrankfUrt, 1460 College Avenue, faIo Alto, CA
94306
Ms. Erika Enos, 2110 Columbia, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms. AnneIIe G. BiaIsoo, 2600 EI Camino, #300, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Brian D. Corilli. 2150 Columbia, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms. Manha PlaIr. 2265 Bo",doin Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
.,..SoIS
.-: ,',;
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PlANNING COMMISSION
nOM: Usa GroIe, Zoning Administrator
AGEI'\'DA VA TE: April 26, 1995
StJBJECr: Appeals of Zoning Administrator Approval of Variance 94-V-18 at
147S Stanford AvellUe, Palo Alto, Cal1fornili
~fENDATlON
Deny !he appeal. and uphold the Zoning Administrator app<O\'a1 of • variance to allow
• nfW rwo-story single-family house wilh a porell 16 feet and !he ,.·.11 of !he boose 21
f~ from \be street side property line (Stanford Avenue}, where a 25 fool5peCW setback
is 0Cherwise RqIlired.
BACKGROUND
The subjecl site is ooe 0( three lois created through • ~Ie of Compliance (CofC)
process In December 1994. It is located at the southeast comer of S!anfonI Avenue and
Columbia SIreet. The previous \0( cootiguration included six 3.12S square fool lois (lS
feel wide by IlS fee( deep). f"lVe ofllle original six lois fromed 00 Stanford Avenue and
one fromed 00 Columbia SIreet. The Cole process created three 6,250 square fool lois
(SO feel wide by 12S feet deep) all fronting 00 Columbia Street. Ali three lois are 10 feet
narrower than minimum required \0( widths ,.;!hin!he R·I zoning district. None of !he
lois are considered substandard. however, becanse Il!ey all have at IeasI SO feet of width
(Section 18.12.05,5(a) of !he Palo Alto Municipal Code). The Cote process was allowed
10 be DSed In !his case because !he process resulted m three lois wIrlch .... -e in grealer
conformaJxe with currenl standards than !he six lois that originally existed •
. -" .
"--
.. , ........
Origlnal Appl.icatioo:
The appIicanl applied for • variance to the special 2S fool selback aloog Stanford Avenue
()Q !!Ie subject sire in November 1994. The applicanl origillally pr"!'05ed 10 locale the
edge oC 1he porch 6 feet and 1he edge oC the bow;e eleven feet from !be Stanford Avetrue
_ side piope.tly liDe (see AttlICbmelll I -letter from Mack Migdal dated
November 14, 1994). .
ZoniDg Administrator Approval:
The ZonIng AdminisInIoc granted • modified variance allowing the edge oC tile porch '"
be located 16 fee! and 1he edge oCtile bow;e 21 feet from !he Stanford Avenue &:reel sid.e
property Ilne (see Attachment 2 -Zoning Admini>tr1Itor decision for 94-V -18 dared
Febnwy 2. 1995).
Appeals:
Three appeals of !be Zoning Administratoc's decision bave been re.:elved. Two appeals
are from the architect and property (lwner and are based 00 the approved variance being
100 sm3I1 10 allow a comfor",b1} 5ized bouse 10 be built on the site (see Attachment 3 •
Appeal letter from Mark Migdal and Leon Taylor dated February 13, 1m and letter
from James Taylor Stroupe daIed February 9, 1995). The second appelll is from a
. nelgbboc and is based on the v&riaoc,e being 100 great 10 be consistimt wkh the
neighbodlood. in addition '" safety, traffic, parking and noi>e issues, as weD as his belief
ilia! !he Cote process was misused in IlUs use {see Alla<:hment 4 -~ leIIe, from
Robin Clark dared Fd>nwy 12, 1995}. All of Ibe issues raised in boch sets of appeal
1eUel$ are addressed in Ibe Issues! Analysis section (l( IlUs report.
Table 1 summarizes Ibe required special setback, !he appli=ll's original proposal and the
Zoning Adminisl/'alOr'S modified approval.
4i26i95
Page 2
" ......
Table 1
6 feet -Pon:h
11 feet -Hoose
Zoning AdmirJisIIatoc',
Modified Awrova!
16 feet -Porch
21 feet -House
Table 2 Summarizes the pertineDI informatioo regarding the site.
Owller:
Assessor's Pa.rul Number:
. Comprellensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Paree! Size:
Table 2
Mark Migdal (U<>n Taylor Iw an option
10 buy the property)
Mark Migdal, Leo.. Taylor,
James Taylor Stroupe
Robin Clark
Mark Migdal (Leon Taylor Iw Of'doo 10
buy the property)
I 31.()6.41
SibgIe-FamiJy Residential
R-l
One Single-Family ResideDCe
NOr1h: Undeveloped Stanford Land
East: Single-family residcn!ial
South: Single-family residcn!ial
West: Single-family residential
6.250 square feet (SO feet by 125 feet)
4126.'95
Page 3
POlJC)' IMPIJCADQNS
There = two existing City policies that are relevant 10 l'lis application. The Mt is
Policy J in !he Housing Elemem of !he existing Comprehensive Plan. it Slates IIlat !he
City should; 'Maintain the gener.ollow.<Jen;iIy character of existi:lg single-family areas. '
This policy is tunber expressed IS 1 set ofR-1 design standards for single-family houses.
These sUndards help assure that Del" developmem is compa!ible with surrounding
deve~ The p<oposed bouse, with !he modified seiliacl< as approved by !he Zoning
Administralor, m.intllins ihe single·family character 0: !he neighborhood to • greater
<legrec than the original Wlderlying lotting patrA.'rn would have allowed.
The second policy is Polley 2 in the Hoosing Element of the Comprehensive Plan., which
states ilia! the City should encourage app!k.ants to: 'Preserve older single-family homes
and small apatImeIll buildings. ' The applicant in this case b2s stated his intent to .. ve
the existing cider bome on !he center lot. He has staled tha: pan of the ;eason wby he
reconfigc.red the original five lois frOOllng on Stanfurd Avem,. and one fr0ll!lng on
Columbia Street in!o three lois an frootfug on Columbia Street .. as 10 save the existing
bouse. Because the '<2rlara appllcation is for • separate lot, the City cannot condition
this variance for p<eSCrvaOOn of the existing bouse _ However, the applicant has llOl
discussed any intent 10 remove the bouse.
mSctJSSlQN
Issues and Analysis
Eigbt basic issues were raised at the Zooing Administratnr hearing and were referenced
in the three appeal Ietten. The n<ighborhood appellant and !he neighbors that spoke
against !he variance raised the following issues: I) Whether the sefua<:k resulting from
• var'.ance approval ",,-ouId be compatible with !he character of the surrounding
neighborhood; 2) Traffic; 3) Parlting; "> Safety; S) Noise; and 6j The use of the ColC
p<occss 10 create the three parcels and whether extraOrdinary 0< exceptiooal circumstances
can be considered 10 exist on • parr.el which was created by !he applicac!'s ""11 action.
The applicantlappellanl and the people thaI spoIte in favo< of the variance raised the issues
9l: I) ¥lSWIl impact and livability of the bouse if. variance is DO( granted; and 2) IIlat
!he four feet of relief from the special setback granted by !he Zoning Administrator is DO(
eoough 10 relieve the hardship thaI exists on the site. These issues are referenced in the
appeal letters and are discussed in fue minutes from the Zoning Administrator hearing.
and the letters opposing and suppor1ir.g the p<oject (see Attachments 3,4,5,6, and 7,
respectively).
4Il6I9S
Page 4
•
Each of !be issues is discussed below within !he COOI.,.t of !be ~ flildings that must
be made 10 approve a "ariance.
ym'prf' Fjntfmr Number I: There are exceptional or e:nraordi.nary circumstances or
cooditioos applicable 10 Ihe proj)etty involve<! that do not apply senen.Ily 10 property in
!be same district.
The Zoning Administrator found that the extrdOl'dinary circumstances 011 this parcel are
!bat it is 10 feet DalTOwe, thaD a typical R-I Io! (SO l1Ither thaD 6C feet wide) aDd has the
special ,ide yard setback aloo8 the enti...., 125 foot _ side property fiDe. These factors
rmdt in 3.125 square feet of DDbuildabie area OIl a 6.250 square fool \0( ODd a buiIdiDg
envelope wi<kh of 19 feeL The OIher lois on SWlford AveDL'" front onto Stanford
AveDUe. and, !berefOre. are subjecc 10 !be 25 foot special setback along their 50 foot
fromages which results i.s 1.250 ~e feet of UIJbuildable area; typically Ihese lois bav.
a 28 10 38 fool wide building envelope depending upon wbetller or DO( they are located
Oil a corner_The lolling Adminisll1ltor also referenced !he fuclwt Ihe ~ larger lots
improved upon the lotting pattern in the area because they would be in better
CoofOl1lWlCe with curnml standards for the R-l district than the original six lots ODd the
fact tba! there are nine OIher ioIs in the immediate area that intrude into Ihe 25 fool
setback by between one and fifteen feet.
The appe31 Iener from the ileigbbo< disagrees with the Zolling Adminisll1lloc's first
finding in two respects. The first is that many lots in !be area are SO feet wide so this
<>DO is DO( exceptional. and !be second is ti'.al a variance sbould not l>e considered on •
Io! wbere the appIlcanl tnowingIy created the "extraordinary" situations himself. through
the Cole plOC<'S5. In addition. the neigbbocbood appelliml docs not believe that !he three
larger lois improve upon the existing lotting pattern because they are incoo<;iste!!l with !he
oriemation of !be rest of the parcels 011 Stanford Avenue. all of whicb bave !root yards
OIl the street, no! side yards_
AIthoogh staffun<!er>tands the ncighbo<bood appelliml's position regarding Jot widlll and
orieDQtion, the finding for exceptional or extraordinaJy cirtumsunces specifically stales
that the subject site is 10 be evaluated against property in the same district, which is the
ovct2ll 11.-1 district. Similoriy. tha finding requires a focus 011 any exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances pertaining 10 the property at the time of the application. As
Joog as lois are legally created. which the subject site .... as through the Cole process, a
stIUc!ure on the .iIe is eligible 10 be coosideRd f<x a variance. The fmt findIng f<x •
variance are based upon !be cbaracteristics of !he site itself, not upon who created !be
site. wby iI: was created or when it W:lS cr.ated.
"
.. ' ~"';'
. ,
4/26195
PageS
,.
" '
,,,~.",." ., ....
. ," ... ~j
,-.
In regmI to !be Iotti!lg pattern, staff believes that a lolling pattern includes IOOre than
«ientation lOWard a partlcular street. Lot size, width, number and orientatioll are an
aspects of a Iotticg pattern. The three larger lo!s improve on at le.N three of the four
characIeristiCS !bat existed wilh !be original six underlylng lots. AI! three lo!s exceed the
6,000 .quare foot minimum size requirement.. There would be three booses on st.ndard
size parcels insttad (}( six houses on substan<!ard size parcels. The 50 foot width,wouId
be closet to !be minim= 60 foot width requirement. Staff believes the fourth
charac!uIst!e, orienwioo toward Columbia Street rather than toward Stanford Avenue,
can also be coosidered to be an improvemem because ac..-e;s 0010 eacb site wiU be
simpler from a quiet residential street than hom a bUSier residential street. It should also
be noted !bat even tboogh Stlnford Avenue is IeCbnkaIly considered the side yard for !his
Jot, !beprop<l'Cd house is designed 10 front on Stanford Avenue.
VWg Fj;¥!ing Number 2: The granting 0{ the appllcatioll is n<:<:essary foe the
preservatioll and enjoyment 0{ a substantial property righ! o{!be applicant, and to prevent
Imreasooable property loss or unnecessary bardship,
The Zoning Administrator found that granting a modified variance is necessary 10
maintain a substantial property right because not granting a va. -iance would mean losing
!he ability to develop ~,12S sq .... r. feet, or half, 0{ !be property. Losing !he usc 0{ half
!be si'.e is l hardship. Granting a modified v~ gives the owner !he rigb( 10 use 380
square feet of the oIherv.ise unusable 3,125 foot setback area, and allows the interior
cftmenSioas 01 rooms ... -iIhin the house to be approximately II and 12 feet wide rather
than 9 and 10 feet wide.
The neighborhood appellanl believes that the unreasonable loss 0{ property aDd bardship
finding is unwuranted because the app'.icanI forfeited the right 10 apply foe • variance
""ben be kno'Mingly <"eated a lot .... ith. a special side yard se!back that would result in 8
hardship.
As stated above, as Ioog as a lot is JegaIlji created. a nriance for a structure 00 it can
be coosidered. The Palo A/t<> Mu!li<:,pa! Code (P AMCJ does DO( state that a property
0,,"""" forfeits the right I<> apply foe • variance if he or she knowingly. or unknowingly,
m:ales a Jo( with characteristics that result in Iw-dship. Had the appIK:an1 cbosen 10
create • ..ooer Jo( on Samford Avenue, the result would have been the ;oss of ,,'Ie existing
house on the 0;-"'. The issue 0{ banlsbip is • factual one foe the Zoning Administrator
in the first instance. and the Planning Commission and Cily Council on appeal.
4126195
Pag.6
.":: ~r ' "' •
. --,-..
The appIicaDt!appelJanl: objects 10 !be Zoning Administ.-aCoc's finding because be believes
!bat \lie f;Ju, feet of relief granted is oot enough 10 relieve the bardsb.ip that .",ists on \he
sice and dlat !be in!erior dimensioos of the boose would oot meet COffiempOI'U)'
expectatioos.
Staff mainIalns th& 10 and II foot rooms, while on Ibe narrow side, are solllivable and
i:U be accommodated with 0Illy I minor intrusion into !be special setbact, which would
still be in cbaracter ... i!h the noighbodlood.. A larger intrusion into !be setback wooId oot
be as eompGtible with OCher se1hacks along SUmford Avenue.
Vyj;mtr Fjpdjnv Number 3: The granIiDg of the application wiI1 oot be detrimental ()f
irjurious 10 property or improvementS in the vicinity and will not be detrimental 10 the
public health, safety, general welfare or CO!lvenience.
The Zoning AdministnIot foond IlIaI gnnting I modified va.'.ance would not be
detrlmeruaIlO improvements in the vicinity because Ibe inlrusion iill<> the special setback
.... ould be minimal. The wall 0( the house would be 21 ket from tile Stanford Avenue
side property iine and tho edge of !be 6 foot wide porch would be 16 feel from the
Stanford AVeDI!e side property line. Approximately nine o<her !louses in the immc:d"",'"
area, including the bouse directly at""S Columbia Street irom the subject site, encroach
between I and J S feet into the required 2S foot special setback.
The bouse and por.:l. would DO( obscure visibility for vehicles travelling on adJaceDl
_ or generate traffIC in amounls !hal would negatively impact the capack)' or sakty
of adjacent Slreets. The on-site parldng re<jI!iremeDt wOlild be mel for !he house and !he
siDgJe-family use wocId DO( generalC a need for OIHitreet parking !bat would negatively
impact the surrounding area.
The Zoning Administratoc conditiooed the mocftfied variance 10 include double."..,.:
lamina...., glass in all windo"'"1 of the house .... hich face Stanford Avenue and 10 include
a roeclllinical means of ventilalloo and air conditionillg 50 lhat windows in tile boUse
would oot have 10 be opened on summer days. These conditioos were incloded 10 r.duce
ail)' negative impacts O!I the bouse from traffIC along Stanford Avenue, and were
coosislelJl with mitigation measures found in the 1989 Final EnvironmenLil fmpact Report
for Ibe Staniord Univcmily GeneniI Use Permit.
4126195
Pagel
.--"' . ;" ..
The ceighborbood appellanl ref<:rences !be issues 0{ eroded development s!andards.
. Ittftk. parking. ooise Il!ld safety. as <flSCUS~ at !be Zoning Administrator bearing, as
reasoos for disagre!ling with !he Zoning Administrator's third f\-'1ding (see Anaclunenl4 -
letter from Robin CIarIc dated February 12, 1995).
Sulf main!llins :tat graIlIing a variance 10 !be special setback would DO( increase the
traffic which .... ouId 0Iberwise be generated by !he .... 0{ the site. or !he demand for OIl
street parlrlng. In additioo. the house, either as originally proposed or as modified by !he
Zoning AdministtaIor, would 00( intrude into !he vision triangle, Il!ld would 00( reduce
sigh! cIistan<:es for vebicles, bicyelisls or pedestrians travening aJong Stanford AvemJe or
Columbiz StteeL These issues ue !berefin 001 directly awikable 10 !he variance being
requested. The issue 0{ noise was addressed by the cooditions .ttscbed 10 the Zoning
Administrator approval. Staff does cot opee thaI L'le modified variance appr(}\-aI results
in eroded. development sWldan!s. Staff believes that !be modified approval grants
minimal relief from a special condition and results in development that is consistenl with
neighlJorhoocl cbaracteristics
The applicanllappellanl has statedli>.at DOl g-~g the variance as originalJy proposed
will result in .I! ~ .. ~ ~ viSuan)' UIlaCtt3Ctive and will have negative impacts on the
neighborhood. Staff considers tllis positioo 10 be irrelevant because variances are 10 be
based 00 site cbaracleristics and constraints and not OIl the arcbitecrJral style 0{ a
parti<.ular structure.
The app!icanI's archlte!:t also 00Ied in bis appeal letter thaI the originally proposed
location of tbe bouse, without the additional iIltnIsion 0{ t!Ie porch, would be an
~ble compromise. The app!icaDt'. aweaI letter does 00( make reference '" such
a compromise. II sboold be 00Ied that planning sIJIff would 001 support tbe removal 0{
tbe porcIJ becanse porches are a frequently found arcbitectural feature in !he surrounding
nelgbborbood and are 00Ied in the It-I guidelines as ~tures wbich bring interest and a
Iwman scaIc 10 the streelS<'ape.
PubflC Participation
AI the Zoning Administrator bearing on 1anuary 19. 1995, 13 people spoke or s~bmitte<l
leacrs in oppo5i1ion 10 !be variance appfteatiotL The opposition focused QII tbe issues
summarized in thls repo<t and are aaacbed (see Attachment 6 -Letters in Opposition).
Eight people spote or submitte<lletlers in support 0{ the variance application. The lcaers
are allacbed 10 tllis report (see Attachment 1 -Leaers in Support).
4!2619S
Page 8
-.. --:----=--~-.. --. _ .... .... '-' .
"~+ -•
. ...... , .
,-
.... "
Three additionalle=$ in oppo.ition Iolthe ~ar'.ance have been rocei"ed since the Zoning
AdnlinlstraWc hearing (see Attachment 8 -Additiooal LeGe .. in Opposition). The IeGers
reference the original reasoos for DppOSing the variance II!ld ODe includes an inv'.tation I()
the Planning Commissioners and City Council member. \0 attend an open guden event
01 • lIOisJlboring boose.
MJEI!NA1JYFS
The Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council:
I) Deny all appeaIs and upbold the Zoning Administrator approval;
2) Deny the neighbor's appeal and approve the appIlcaoi's appeaI. Thls alternative
would esselllWly grant the applicant's original request;
3) Deny the appIic.u!I's appeal, and approve the neighbor's appeal. This alternative
woold result in the aw'Jcant being required \0 meet the spedal 25 rOO( side setback
along Stanford AveDUe; or
4) Den~ ali appeals and grant a variance for • dimension it believes is reasonable and
fo< which the required finding' can be made.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City of Palo Alto from any of the alternatives.
ENYIRONMEl'o'TAI. ASSFSSMTgIT
The project is <:aregoricaI!y exempt from the CafLfornia Environmental Quality .I.e!
(CEQA).
S1VS FOUPWING APPROVAL
I'rocMIIO the City CoonciJ on May IS, 1995 for final action on the appeals.
ATIACHMENTSlEmmITS:
I. Utter from Marl< Migdal dated November 14, 1994
2. Zoning AdmIDistrator decision dated February 2. 1995
3. Letters of appeaI from Mark Migdal and Leon Tayloc and lame;; Taylor Stroupe dated
February 13 and 9. 1995. respectively
4. Utter of appeal from Robin Clark dated Febmary 12. 1995
S.· Minutes from the January 19. 1995 Zoning Administrator Hearing
6. Letters in Opposition 10 Proje.:1 (13 leaers)
7. Letrers in Support of Project (8 leaers) .
8. Letters Received After the Zoning Administrator Hearing
9. Plans {Commission members only]
4l26I95
Page 9
COURTESY mms·
Ms. Debn Cauble, Assistanl City Attorney
Mr. Mm Migdal, 1.7$ Stallford Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Wtlliam Ross. Ross and Scott. 52<) Sootll Gnnd Avenue, Suile 300.
Los Angeles. CA 90071-26lD
Ms. C. Frankfurt, 2109 Columbia Sueet, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Iloom Clark, 2025 Columbia SU:eet, Palo Alto, CA 943Q3
Ms. JW!:leen DurIwn, 2<)39 Dartmouth Saeet, Palo Alto. CA 94306
Mr. Leon Taylor. 2435 21st Street, San Franc;..:o, CA 94116
Ms. Susan Il~, 116 Maple $tree(. Cooway. MA 01341
Mr. Joh11 and Ms. Marilza Frankfurt, 1460 College Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms. EriD Enos, 2110 Columbia. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms. AtmeIre G. Bialson, 2600 EI Can>.ino, 1300. Palo Alto, 0 .. 94306
Mr. Brian D. CoriIli. 21SO Colmnbia, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Ms. ManIla PlaIt, 2265 Bowdoin Street. Palo Alto. CA 94306
Prepared by: Lisa Grote. Zoning Administrator
Projecl Planner: Lisa GroIe, Zoning Adminislr1ltOf
DivillioolDepanment Head Approval: NiIIl£Y M. Lytle. Qief Plannjrj$ Offici.!
4/26195
hge 10
~ i· ;
. '",' .... -
". ---. "~
lb.& OtQle, ZooWI& Administrator
DepartmeDl of Plannin&
City 01 Palo Alto
2SO HamilIOD AveDlie
Palo Alto, Calilonoia 94301
t~-f_yr,/
i~{. //L. _
RECEIYlD
NOY H I!m
ae: VariaDCe Applicatioo; Side Setback
1415 SWlford AveoDe, Palo Allo
W_OPI'IMIM
Nl6>00MI0IUIm'--
i1'f-V-tl
APN U7-06-41
Dear Ms. Grote:
Please lIod attached our applicatioo for !he variance witlt side
IClback alocS Sl&IIlord Aycou.. The Deed [or dW variance is
brooJhI lip by eXlraordilluy difClCulti .. , u. desipUnl a suilable bOllse
011 !he lot whk:1a comers Slanfcrd Aveoue aud Columbia SlreoL
Tk desi", 01 !he howe, lUlIe,s I variance is araoted. will !save
10 fit ill the aarrow strip 01 laud (19 fL wide), wlaicla Is delclmioed
by 2S fL special IIClbaclt aloog Slanford .... culle aud 6 fL side IIClbacl<
OD the oppo<ite side of the lot
The specific hardsllip ill ~plyiDl wilh !his reqaitemeol
would be flot only ill \he pracdcal impossibility 01 desi,nill, I decenl
bouse ill IOC' a aarrow 100, strip 01 10Ild. but also ill obvlcus
UlcODvellleuce aud awkwardness ill living ill lue' • boose. II is &Iso
important 10 now !hat immedi"te lIei,bbarbood will be negativel::;
effected by ugly "railroad ear" shape of ."". house.
So die lppfo.a1 of our applicaOOo wil1 be a benifil, Dot only for
the flllllrC resideDts of !he bOllse, bUI &Iso for IlIttOWldin,
c:ommnity.
I also wODld lilte 10 list this oppoctuni!y 10 infOlD you lIIal
quite a few bouses alOD, Staul ord ... ven DC have street setback Ies.
Ih.aD 2S fa. AU lOgelller lIIere are 23 DOD -complyin, propocnies.
--.. '
lSC Stanford. . • • Hi fL lIe!back
1053 Stanford. • • • 9 Ct. "!back
9Q SwifonS. • 13 h
'4!i Stanford. •• 11 fL
6.53 Stanf<lO'6. • • • 11 f\.
631 Stanfacd • -. • • 11 h
It & also imponanl to bow th., tbeie is • five it. 'fiide
ladnfCaped SteeD suiI' witlt mature trees betweca sidewalk and
SWlford AVQl1IC. Thele is wo U llI1usualJy ",ide ( 12 fL ) parkiJIIl
lane &t !his landscaped suiI' towards !be middle 0( the .~
The property line 0( 1M subject lot ill nality is IOClk4 mor~
tIua. l ft. away from Ibe cd,c of the sid.walk 0( the future bome.
So iD rWly. II it. IClback, for whkll ..... arc applyin,. if
lpPf'C>vcd. 'IIilI place the front 0( \he bOllIC t.e CL ...., 16 fL back from
\he edge of the side9!llk, and a1hog,-ther at 39 fL .way from the
traffic iaIlC 011 Stanford Avenue.
It is also imporwIl to kilo,", Ibat (!1l the opposite side 0( lb.
property We pr<lpO$C to _have 9 it. instead of 6 fL allowed side
setback, "'lUd, ,..oald mW development less deuse and provide
1IKft ... space bet'llceu Ibe houses.
Sincerely.
Mark
AppIicZioo Nt>. 94-V-18: 1.f1S Stanford Avenue
Variance 94-V-18 is approved, as ""oditioned below, for the Ioca~"" and construction
of a DeW two-stOf)' single-fa1niIy rcoideoce, w!>ere the po!Ch is located 16 feet and tile
wall of the house is located 21 feet from tbe _ side property fme {Stanfocd Avem>O},
wben: • 25 fool spe<iaI setback is _""is< required, as per plAns mOOified in
acrordance YIith toDdition I below, 81 141~ Stanford ,"""llUC. R-\ (Single-family
resideDti.l) ZoDe DisIrict, Palo Alto, California. TIle project is approYed based 011 the
fo!lo ... ing fl!l<fings and is SIlbject 10 tile cooditloos Jisted below.
fINDINGS
I. 1bere Il"e excep(ionaJ or extraordir-.a.ry circumstances or carxfrtions
applicable", the propeny involved !hal do no< apply generaDy 10 propeny
in the same distdct in !hat the lot is len feel rwrower lhan a rypical Jo( in
an R·l zoning tflSlric( (SO feet wide ins!ead of 60 fee, wide) and is subject
10 a 25 foot. wide special street side: setback -!long Stanford Aveauc where
tho .yplcal street side se!bad, in aD R-I zone is 16 feet. The SO looI,.,ide
lot """ created by tile ~"tificate of urnpfi.:x:e (C of C) process, which
created three SO foot ,.ide by I2S foot dtep lots "'.It of six 2S foot .. ide
by 125 foot dtep lots. The lots resulting from !be C of C pr=ss
improved upon !be pm<ious lotting pane", and rendered !be lots more
confooning with cnrrenI zoning requirements, bu. did nor enlirely remove
the pbyskal tcnstJoinIs from Ihe lots. O!het lou fromlnf ()n Stanford
Avenue betw= BowtflOll Stn:e1 .nd H.,...,ard Street bav. the 25 foot deep
special setback a/OIIg Ibr.ir SO foot wide from propeny fmes, which results
in i ,250* square feet of unbuildoble area. The subjm site bas the 2S foot
special se!back along i<s 12~ fOO( long street side propeny line, which
results in 3,125 square feet of unI>.1iklable area;
2. The granIlng of tbe application is necessory fa< the preservation and
enjoyment of a substanti2l propettj right 0( the applicant, and 10 prev.1ll
unrea..«lll3bl< property los, or unne<:eSSal)' hard;hip in!bal, as COOOltlOned
below, the applicant would obtain \lSe of 38() square feet of setMcK area
(approximately 340 square feet for !be bouse and 40 5quO,... feel for tile
porch), while not sub5lantially encroaching into the spe<iaI setbac1<. Tb<:
inlerior tfunensious 0( Ibr. lOOI!lS could be approxima.ely II and 12 feet
wide, .. !tiel! r.n will'Jn cootempo.-ary building standards; and
94V18.1g
Iglds1c ~J-Iamilb:m A~·erll.E
P D. 8.:."..ltrz .. 'iO
Pair· Allo,CA. ~
.,[1'5 . .,:;.:09 ::!"-U
.n5_~ !!1Gfib.
February 2, 1995
Page I
<-~'
3. The granting of the application will not be detril~ 0< inju.";"'" 10
property or improvements in the vicinity in Illat the standard 1t·1 street
side setback of 16 feet will be met for tbe 6 wide poo:h and !he remainder
of house will be setba<:l 2l feet from !he sam side property line rathe,
than 25 ~~ 1i'biclI is not I sub!.taatial encroac1unent upoo !he required
setbacJr.. Approilina<eIJ nine OIber houses in the immed"Llte >-= have
encroacbments ir'.o the required 2S foot special setb""". r.mging from one
foot '" approxm:.tely IS feet.
The location of !he house. as conditioood below. ",ill not ol>scure vlsihililJl for
vehicles lravelling 00 adjaceOl =15. or gene"'te traffic in amounts Illat wi!!
Deg_lively impact the upacily or safety of adjilCC!ll streets. The project meets the
on-oire porkmg requirement for single-tamily uses and will not negative!y impact
surround"lDg stteets with add"llionaJ on~ par'<.ing.
Granting the applk:ation will not be delrimel11al \0 Mute inll>bitants o! !he house
in that.. as C!lnd:'"tioned below. interior noise levels. rescitiIlg from exterior:
~s. ",hieo an: identified in the 1989 Fin>! &.v;'orunentaJ Impact Report
(FlR) for the Stanford Universk)' General Use PeiIIlit as being unacceptable .. will
be reduced iO acceptable levels.
COND!JJQNS
94Vl&.lg
Igldsk
The location of !he house shaD be modified from the originally proposed plans
such Illat !he poo:h shan be no closer !han 16 feet from !he street side property
line (StlInfon! Avenue). and Ihe lIL1in wan of !he house shall be 00 closer than 21
feet from the street side property line (Stanford Avecue). All OIber 20ning and
development requirements sbaII· be met. 1nImor room dimensions sbalI be
modified '" :=ommodate approved setbacIr.s. PLm. .boll be Rviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator prior ., isSWlOCe of I building PO""''' for
the projeot.
Double-pane 1aminated glass ,ball be osed in aD 1II;''1<Iow. o(!he facade facine
Stmfon! A veoue 10 1:e1p .educe interior noise levels generated from exreriOr
souroes 10 at or below SO <!SA. which is !he acoeptable threshold for residential
oolso levels staled in Ille &'...wDmeI11al Resources EIemen! of the Palo Aho
Comprebcnsive Pim (1980-1995).
... ~ -'
;
February 2. 1995
Page 2
.,,'
i -Z • -~, ~-~:-.~-:~ ;:_.""~ '-.
',-..
p ---,,: ,.,. ~
3. A. mechanic>l means 0( vent11atloo and air cooditiooing shall be inc<><ponted int()
!he design 0( Ihe house 10 help mluce interior noise levels generated from
ext.erioc soorces 10 at or below SO dBA, whiclt is !he ac<eptable th1eshoId fur
residentialooise w/tIs stated in !he EnviroruneD!al ~ ElemeDl o(!he Pale>
Aho Comp~benslve Plan (1980-1995).
USA GROTE
Zooing AdminisIrotor
February 2, 1995
• F>gU>~ changed from 1,000 ~ 1,2S0 on April 11, 199510 correct mathematicaleITO<.
This fonn d<>es DO( <onstirute !he variance for v.'bich applicatioc ...... mad.::. If !he
appllcatioc is approved and if 00 appeal from this d.::cisien is f!led by any pei"SOn flllll,
or ~tloo affectal by tile d.::cision on or by February 13, 1995, you will receive a
copy 0( your penni! in !be mail. If this applicanoo is not d.::cided SO yOW' satlsfac!iDn,
!he d.::cisicn may be appealed 10 !he PWming Commissicn by filing an a!'Fa! applic3tio,
with !he Planning Department and Cily Clerk on or before !he aOOYe IT.enOOned date.
cc:
94VI!Ug
IgJdsl<
Mr. Joseph M. CGlonna, Senior i'lluu>er
Ms. Debra Caub:', ...... isWll C;,y Attorney
Mr. Marl< Migdal, 1475 Stanford Avenue, Palo Aho, CA 94306
Mr. William Roos. Roos and Soon. 520 South Grand Avo",,,,,, Sni.e 300, Los
Ar.ge!es, CA 90071-26!O
Ms. C. Frankfurt. 2[09 CGlUmbia Str<et, Pal" Aho, CA 9430(;
Mr. ROOm CI.aIk, 2025 CGlumbia Street, Palo Aho, CA 94303
Ms. Xathleea Dumam, 2039 Dartmouth Street, Palo Aho. CA 94306
Mr.l.eoG rajOOr, 2435 21st S=t, Sa" Francil=, CA 94116
Ms. Sasan Rosenber!, 116 Maple S=t. Conway, MA 01341
Mr. SOIm and Ms. Maritza Frankfurt, 1460 College Avenue, Palo Ahc>. CA
94306
Ms. E<lka Eoos, 21 HI CGlumbia, Palo Aho, CA 94306
Ms. AnDetle G. BWson, 2600 iii CamIno, 1300, Palo Aho, CA 94306
Mr. Brian D. Corilli. 2150 Columbi., Palo Alto, CA 94306
1 . ,
February 1, 1m
. Page 3
"
--,'
CITY OF PALO A~TO
0IIk:e cI "'. Cily CIeri<
APPEAl FIION THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINlSTFIA TO!!
To be Bod ., dupllea!e _ ten claY' !rom clate of de<lsioo 01 ZorJng MmL,islrator
toCATIQH OF PROI'ERT'f, _. Parcel No. -:--.!:!J:...:::e.::<.::, :...' __ --. Zone Oi$I1'oCI ~ \
_Add.... \...(h <;{.........-~ fi..,;~ t~ ,.(..e~
Name 01 Pooperly CNme< (l oIhe-lhan appol\anQ k~ P< ~~L-
l'oopo!1y 0Wn0(. Address __ :!:.'2-<::>~{~I=~c:: ... ~e;:~~.~~:::=-'!~.~~ ... ,,-~\~~~ . ..:.._~i>",~C.~!.e.~k~~
$tree! Citj Zip
Pi.ANNlNG OOMMlSSlON IlECOMMENCATlON TO THE CITY WJNCIL:
Dale ~ CenTed ___ _
ome ____________ __
t.
2.
3-..
5.
-v
I? .z
Ceniec! ___ _
February 13, 1995
Planning Commission
CHy 01 Palo Alto
CilyCounci
City 01 Palo Alto
Ms. Usa GlOIe, Zoning MmWs!:'alor.
CiIy 01 Palo Al\o
-.
", , ~-.' " " -, ....
~ecI: Appeal 01 h! dedslOnlor\he requeslol variance 811475 Stanford A.e., Palo
Alto
Dear Ms. GroIe, Planning Commissioner. and Crty CooneR Members;
We appreciate very muc" an \he ~me which was put by Ms. Grots and Mr. Coloma
inl<>!he ravie.., of our appUca!iOn lor the variance.
While !he additional 4 fee! given 10 ~'S by !he Zoning Mmiflistra\or gives some rerre'
10 \he hardship of desigrJng a nice house oolhls narrow 101. we stin have a hardship in
designing a house wNch wiD be boIh U1cfional and aes!he!ica/ly appear"'9 wi!hin an onfy
ro.fooI 'Wide buolding envelope.
Wl>le reviewing \he variance tile, an !he letters, and \he tape of \he pubfoc hearing,
ooe can easily see !hal people w!1o were suppocting!he approcation were tatlOOg abootlhe
need for a beller-looking and more funcfiona! house wNch wi" be an essenfial part of
Stanford Avenue and 'tle whole nelghbomood lor I'le nex! 70 '" more years.
On fie oIher hand, people w!1o were objecting. talked mainly on subjects not direc/ly
related 10 I'le vaf.ance, but talked ra1her about !heir dlssatisfaction with \he C.of C. process,
traffic and noisa levels on Stanton! Avenue and Columbia Streets, dangers 10 ch1ldren.
housekeeping and landscaping, and so on and on and 00.
• is obvious I1all'leiI rMln grievances are relaled 10 \he facll1at!here will be two
more new homes built In \he neig/1borf1ood. They hardly adc!ressed \he maTn pclnI .. oflich
was 10 be discussed • f1e need lor \he valiance 10 allow a smaller selbacK in oroer 10
enable \he cJeslgn of a better loOking house.
\--
~ .. -. ,'--, . '~
/'
We appeallhe decision of ihe Zoning Mministralo< with ihe hope flat review of our
appeal woofd allow our original apprteation fOr a 13-100t StanlOIc! Avenue set back. We wiD
lty 10 cancel comple!ely an e~ IroN porch which has an additional 5-1oo!
encroac!vnerl and replace it wilh a recessed entrance, so flat no more 6-1oo! sellJack lor
lie enIJy porch WOtJId be requ1red.
We ,,"811110 make ihe !oI1owing ~ very cleat 10 ihe Planning CommlSsioo and
members of lie City Coonel :
" by cIenying lhis variance 00 good will come 10 any I'.eighbor; and f1e nerg!1bomood
will have 10 ive with an ugly "ranroad car" IooI<ing hoLose 10< many years 10
" by allowing lhis variance a r.eigllbo<hooc! will gel a much bette< looking oouse, f1e
occupaniS win Dve in a mo<e comfortable and better function",!! home, and
more airspace and landscaping ( IS-foe>!) would be pmvic!ed between !he exisfi"9 ho<r.-.e
al 2011 Coh.'I1lbla Strut and \tie lu1lKe house at 1475 Stanford Avenue.
" f1e requested setb3ck w:. noI be a unique one along Stanrord Ave",,";
tlere are already 23 homes on Slanlorcl Ave~ both, f1e old ones and f1e new
ones, wtticfl encroach into f1e required 25-1oo! Stanford Ave. sell:>acK.
Wilh UI respect 10 your wOO< and 10 your c:luties.
Sincerely you<s, ~ /: t-
• 2435-21 Street J-" ! "1 Leon Taylo<
. t ,->' V...----San Francisco, CA 94116
/Z. ~ Mart< Migdal I . I 2011 CoIurnbia Street
Palo Afto, CA 94306
' .. -
JAMES TAYLOR STROUPE, ARCHITECT
595 Sand Dollar Lane Ma"resa Beach, ell. 95076
09 February 1995
lAs. lisa GroIe, Zoning Adm!n1stra!or
Piami">g Depanmenl City 01 Palo All<>
25() Hami1\oo Aveme
Palo Alto, CaTIfomIa 94301
P1aming CommiSSion
City 01 Palo Alto
(408) 722-443$
Sut;jecl: Appeal 01 decisi.."!1 on Reques! 'or Var'.ance 10 refieve from special 25-fooI
side setback @ 1475 Stanford Ave'lUe Palo Mo, Carrfornia 94306
APN 137-06-109 (Proposed Tay10r Aesldence)
Dear Ms. Grote:
Dear members 0I111e Planning Commission:
J am !he archilecl woo has !he !ask 01 designi'>g !he house 10 be built al
1475 Stanford Avenue,
FifSt, Ie! me say, I appreciate any decrease in !he 25-fooI required side
SEtftlad< from Stanford Avenue. Whlle your decision 10 reduce !he minimum requirEtd
slOe seftlad< from 25 feel 10 21 feel did reduce Ihe Ownefs hardsllip, iI was not enough
10 compIelely reneve it The new requirement s~n maKes I tflfficull \0 design a more
functional, traditional home, 10 blend wf1t, Ihe existing homes along Stanford Avenue. It
is sIiII very d'rt!icutt 10 design a house wjfh a properly Nnctioning i'lleriOt' a.'1d an
aocepIable exleriOt' on 8 building envelope crly 20 feet wide.
I beneve I1e IS-fool skle selback 10 Ihe first IIQor OIfginally requested,
excluding Ihe request for a porch at the 6-fooI setback. is appropriate for !he following
reasons: It allows an aclditionaJ 3 teel between I1e existing house at 201 t Columbia end
!he proposed Tay10r residellce in question. This is vet)' important. since Ihe exisDng
home was designed with its entrance facing Stanford Avenue, which will be mainlainEtd
812011 Columbia Street
The reqUested IS-fool setback aMows for Ihe design 01 a home a! 1475
S1an.ford Aver.Je which can have two rooms 01 normal size across Ihe Iol If \he
required side setback is less lhen 13 feet, !he IooIpM1 oIlhe house win need 10 be
revised $0 lhal!he house wlI extend 10 !he rear yard selback. ms would creale a very
long fascade aJong Stanford Avenue a'1d a very 1hin 2·s~ lascade facing Columbia
Street
r'/ "
., ..
0/:'",." ..
"
· A 20-i00i: wide hOuse with very long lTonl and rear wans will be an ayeS()(e
... fie neig/1bo1f1Ood for !he next 6O-SO years! On !he other hand ~ fle variance were
granted, tie hOuse fooIt:rinI coo1d be widened 10 28 :6el vel'SOS 20 feet. and be
&ubstan!!ally shorter, allowing for a decent back}-ard arrangemer>t
I would also lil<e 10 r&mind yw !'.at f1e cilslanc& hom property flt\e 10
sidewalk Is an additional 2 fee! and With a 5-foot wicfe sidewalk and an additional 50 fool
wide pIanling smp, fie actual distance !rom f1e face of f1e lulure hOuse 10 !he curb
would be exactly 2S feet
FonaDy, please remember hi no neighbo<s Wll be affec!ed by \he
granting of Hs variance, since !he selbaCk in quesfion is between i1e p<oposed new
hOuse and f1e stree!, and no( affeeling neigl1bors' yaros 0< views. The people a!fect~d
by flis varia;1Ce will be f1e resklents of t1is Mure hOuse, and !hey are !he ones applying
fof Ile Oecrease in side selllacl<. N. of Ilese improvements could be ac"jeved al no
oosI al aD 10 !he n9i9hb<><s or Ile dIy.
Please cor.tact me al (4D8) 722-4435 if you have any Q'JeS!ions.
j.
James Taylor Stroupe, Architect C 12455
.... ..
cny OF PALO ALTO
. 0Mc. or !he Cly CIeri!
APPEAL FIIOU THE DeCJ510N OF WNING ADMlNlelJlA TOR
To be tied rn cfoprloCatt WIhin len d'8)'S from date r:A d&Cision r:I Zor4ng AdmiriistratOl
Ajlp'Ic:a!Ion No,
Non>t 01 AppeIlart '\to \::,,,,,, e. \0.", \<....
Jod<kess '2.<:> "l. <;. Co \"",-"-"'-~ -'t-•
ReceipI No, __ j.L.5><---",0..,.' 0,,
Phone(ctU) ~lt)S~t
Street
'\>.,.!.", /I.\-\-.,
CI!y
LOCIcr!ON OF I'ROPEIII I: AssHsQr', Parco! No. Zone DisW:t \:t - \
_Add.... 1 ........ ';, ~"'~.a "'~ ... ....e.
Name d PJ<Jperty Owner (f """" lllan awe/l.11I) _ ... k:.>.:.--"M"70~a",,,,,=l. _________ _
P"'l>lrty Owner'. Address \ ...... "> ~ ... ~ ... A ~"'L· '\>...\". '" \l.:, C(', '\0 \,
Street CI!y Z"op
reasons slated In Itl •• !lac!1ed len.,. ~ dupr"""e). n
Oat. ~-\'V,\<;' Slgnature 01 AppeIIanI ""\6,~\.v.~"'--
Oate __________ _
Remal1<s IndJor Cond'rtions:
CITY ~ DECISION:
ome ___________ _
Remas1<s and/or CooO'klns:
SUBMITTAl. REQUIREMENTS SATISFieD:
1.
2.
3-
4.
5.
I'lans
labels
~ App!1caflOl1 Forms
lel!er
Fee
Approved--Oel'lied ___ _
""",",,00 ____ _ DenTed ____ _
a~~~ B~
a~
B~
B~
..
'2ftg
. ' .
. ~ :
-".--"---~ . .,.",-' -.-.-
;
~~"'--.
~~~~rlI:;f~:;i:'ci.j'i<~}·'·· .~.'.' ,' .. :...; :L~~:i)hc.c''''.O~h'~C~';''<?>;''¥::
Planning Deparlmenl
City of Palo AIIo
2'50 Hamilloo Avenue
Palo 111'.0, CA 94301
2025 Col ... 'iG Stred
P./" All., C./;j"no;. 94306
Ae: Appeal 01 Varia!ICe 94-V-18
Dear PlaMing Department
2-12-95
The granting of variance applicalioo 94·V-1810 allow lOca1lon and cons!nJcfio"
of a new twe>-story single-family residence at 1475 Stanlorc' Avenue wItl'ln the special
25 loot setback is hereby apPeaTed.
We disagree with !he f.ndlngs ot lhe Zoning MrolniSlra!Of in 11'<11:
1. The 50 i0oi width of !he To! in queslioo is typicar 01 otl".ers in Ihe R-' zoning
dis!ricl (the Zoni.ng AdministralOf ~fjrm s Ihfs in finding 1 where J is staled
'00 fronting Stan/ord Avenue.lIave!he 2S loot desp special setback along
1heir 50 100( wide fronl propeI1y lines 1. The 2S loot special selback camet
be regarDed as ar\ 'excepfJOnal or eX!taorc!i!w), circumSlance' in thalli
applies 10 all lois on Stanford Avenue. The lois resulling from !he C of C
process tIlO not Improve upon !he pre'lfous lotting pattern wherein 5 lois
frOOled on Stanford Avenue. A! lois in !he p,-, zone ccn!oon 10 tvs lotting
pattern, ie. !hey fronI onlo Stanford Avenue. The facllhallhe S'Jbject Site
has !he 2S i0oi special setback aJong ls 125 i0oi long SIres! sidE property
line is a normal ooIcome 01 !he rnaMel' in whicl1the appI'lCanI re-coofllJUreO
!he Io! lines and can lhereT«e not be regarded as 'exceptlonal.·
2. The granfing of !he variance '10 preven! unreasooab!e property loss Of
unnecessary hardshil>" is oowananted. By his own actions in crea!Ing !he
subject 101. the appIV'.anllo<f?~s Ihe rig/lIlo apply for a hatdslljp variance
A va.'iance cannoI be granted on !he basis of a pelCeNec! hardship erea!ed
by lie projecl appT'1Ca'll
S. The grantIng of a variance ooc!er suc~, COI1!riVec! circumslarlCeS will be
de!rimen!allo lie surrOUOCfong commun~ In !hal develOp01enl standards will
be eroded. This apprJCatioo 1$ another example of a developer attempting 10
use !he variance process for increas«1 economic gain aI!he expense of
eslablis1led single-family developmer1 standards.
A llUlT"obe< 01 other vand argulMnts agains! \his variance were presented 10 !!'Ie
Zoning Administrator at !he pubflC hearing !lJroug/l oral a.'ld wrilfen communications.
These arguments are inCQrpotaled herein b, reference.
Thls variance' appficatlon ami h con<;!itionat approval by the Zoning
M:Tlinistralor raise a number 01 issues !hat should be brought 10 the attenflOll 01 !he
PtaIvlUlo Commission and !he City Cooncil. The appeal process will be used 10 !he!
end.
ce: Ka!hfeen Ourt\am
Susan Rosenberg
Brlar> Carini
Wi!liam floss, ..... '!orney at Law
AMetle Bialson, Marney at law
.. "'--"
fXCEP.PT
ZONING ADMI~ISTRATOR HEARING
Janelry 19, 1995
!475 STANFORD AVENIJ£
APPiICATIOH NO. 94·'-18;
, -
Appeal of the zonIng .dol.lst,ator appro,.l of '.rlance 9(-'-18 for. "OW,
twa-story~ single-famil, residence ~th I porch locite~ 16 feet and bouse
will located 21 fee: fr~ the str •• t ,Id. prop.rtl lID' DO Stanford
A~enue, ~ere i l5-fo~t specfal setback is etherwise required.
En,ironme,t,l As .... me"!: C.t.goric,ll, •••• ,t_ fils Mo. 94-1-18. Tbis
fte~ is tentitfvely sc~eduled for cit, ~cunc11 review O~ ~J IS, ;99S~
~s, ~rDte: is the applicant ready to giye a prese~tltion?
MjT't "f9da1. 1415 Stanford' Avenue. Pal" Al t,~: (lur origirlal intelltf~H"I ..
wheR ~e pijrc~ase~ this property. ~s to subdi~ide t~~ propert, into two
6 .. 000-$~uare-foot lots. After li'lng there fer just a few ~eeks il i
65-yeir o1d. Cape (od style, twc-storl ~ome of unique c~ara(ter, we
realfzed t~it we enjoyed the house and ~ei9hborhood. ~a~~lTe~ we
undertoot an extensive title sear(b. 90i~g ~ick t~ 1868. It indfcated
that there 'Were sil idel'ltifiilble lots. '"f'hich .,e did not 'know crlg;nallJ~
Whet] we fOlJnd that {Jut, my real estate a,d\l1sor said Uis was incredib1e.
Witho~t any diffic51t procedure. I could df_ide 1t up ,nto six lots and
sell t41 sh differect people. But we r-e .. 1ized' that our irJtentiOrl of
living ther~ ~ould not be fwlfilled. Ocr origf~al plan to gc thr~ugh the
subdhi~;oll l'Iap process lfas not cecessary i r W~ l1ad three lots. ~ our
process ~s compTete1, changed. We removed some lines and ~ovea some
Dther Jines ~ere ~e ~anted to ~ave them. 1n tits ~al. ~e accomplis~ed
~at ~ needed~ and the Existing house wDu1d be p~eser~ed. So we went
througll the process ~hidl was fin'all, compTeted 15 December,. 1994.
J t~lni that sf. ti~1 lots ~ould not be com~atible ~it" t~e neigkborbood~
and ~ .ere not ~appy ~;th that jdea~ especlalty because we couTo not
pro~ide partiDg space for t~e e~'stlng bous~. l~stead~ ~e ~a~e tnree
legal], separate properties wit~ ne~ addresses~ ~amelJ. 1475 Stanford
'.venue, 20Jl C.llflTll>ia and 2017 Col"mbi.. We vi 11 resIde at 1475 Stanford
Avenue a~d the other two lots ~ll be de~eloped as single-famil,
residencEs.
Ve found o~t that Stanford Avenue ~as an established setback of 25 feet j
wnlck would make 1t very difficwlt t~ develop a s1ng1e-farnily nome l as it
would be a 'ery earrcw building envelope. T~at is why we ~a¥e app1fed (or
.1 viriance to a.llow the f"hre house t!) be t!1J;' t facing OD Stanford Avenue
to be closer t~a" reQu]T~d by the setoa(k.
~ the advice gf Nanty lytle, I have done a~ exteRSlve summary of ~at is
going on on StanfDrd Aven~el and we found out that there are 23 homes, r.e~
ones and (lTd DJ'ieS~ "'h':c:'h are preSE[)tl,. encroachiog ill this setbac~. I
line subioitted p'hotographs shc'w"ing tnem. identified wil~ Heir address.
IB tilling te some of ~~ neighbors j some ~f them ire i~ strong support of
my ip~li{ation, and some of t~em are against it~ ] have trie~ to exp1aim
t~a.t the res~lt of enfo~cfng t~js setbac\ ~il1 resa1t 1m an ~glJ, narr{Jw
house.
~.~' ,-;: -
01/l9/95
-1-
:=-. -.. "-) ;,,,:-~,
. .",'~-., -,-
~s, Crgte: Pleise restrict your remar~s t~ ~ summary of your proposal~
~. IUgda,l: 1 ca.nnot see .'hoo will benefit froll Uis, flot t"~ ~e~gtlbonl
Dot the owr.ers.
~ 'rott: Thonk YOQ.
Mr. !jgdol: I bave t.1ted with to" neighbors, and attempted to talt with
th.... They WOrt advised t. eo .• e te the public ~e.ring. After talking
vith me, .ost of them fmmedlit.ly cha.ged their position and expressed
theIr suppert for my positfon. I w,nt to t.1k about my .ttempt t. discoss
the subJect wfth the people ~o .re against it.
M" Grgte: T~'s is net tn! ti~e to ta.lk about t~at. Tnls is t~e tfrne to
give your summary. ind ~ will open ap t~e public hearing for the
nejg~bors t. ecmrneot.
Hr. ~igdil: i ~ave some ~re letters to submit. One is from ~y neighbor,
""lly C~yn •• ".0. Also. I,tter from Peter Yilti., ll40 Bowooi. Str •• t,
beth f. f,vor of the •• ri.nce. Als. teo. T.ylor, 243S 21st Stroot, San
fr~n<f$Ce. 9~J161 w~o is the new owner Gf t~e propert~9 i~ ~upport of the
appHcatfon.
MS. ~rote: All rlgnt. thar.t you. I Yill now open tne publ7c hearing. Is
t~~re a~yor.e pres!~t who would like to comment?
[rita [nos, 1110 (olumbia Street, Pale Al!~; I ~ive a question. Did~.
Migdal ac:ttu:n, sell the ..moh parcel? ',11 three hits? Or did you keep
tne house you will be lf~iog i~?
Sr-eigq.l, I >rill koop the mido1, house.
i'ls. Enos: So )'(11;1 Yill develop the properl)' to the south of you?
lIT. Mfgd.l, Ie,.
Ann,ttt Bi.lso", 2600 E1 C •• lnc Real, BOO, ril •. ~1to; Has e.ero. closed
on t~f5 transaction?
lIT. "ige.l: Yes.
~s. 9ialso~: Are J~U prepared t& disclQse t~e tondit~ons of the contract
tlld you flave?
lIT. "igd.l: Th.t is not relev.nt tc tois fie. ring.
~s! Ifalso~: So you are not ~repared to disclose t~at.
lec~ Taylor. 2435 21st Street. San frar.cfscQ: I a~ t~e ~e~ owner of tn~
lot~ and I a~ ia faver Qf granting the variance.
Ms. £nos.: I "ave beea iI resla'E~t CC~O\lmer fi!l (ellege Terrace for eYer two
years. Fifteen of those ye.rs are it 1110 Columbia Street, just down the
street from t~e propo~d de~elop~ent af t~lS ~ropertJ. The reason f am
bere is t~at I feel it is really important to ~a~~ ~y input ieto the
building department so that you can make a fi1T and equltable deciSion
01/19/95
-2-
-. . -J
.. -"
regardjng t~e granting of the •• rfane.. I feel that tol, I"oe ~on,I't'
~f twa parts. The first Fart i5 whet~~r cr not. i~ fact. t~is request
~ets t~E rules cf t~e variance, is stated i~ the zoning guf~eboot. One
questfcn j$ whether t);s propertJ is Ycfque. ] have ~ade a m~p of t~e
three lot, and 'tH"roonding properties to show t~lt the ~aJcrlt1 .f the
lat. ire exactl} the same as the new l~ts that were created. So f~ ~J
OpfltOD. t~fs lot is not unfque.
Nr. ~i9d.l ~r.t. letter. t. the Public works Dep.rt~~nl that t.lked .bout
the fact that t~i, I, one of three lot., and .ll three l.t, are
apprGx;matelJ t~e same. A9alR~ J ~ould say that thfs lot 15 not unlq~e.
~e'ther f~ its typograpby nQr fl its sile or s~ape.
Secondl]. it says i. the variance procedures tnat the owner does not have
the S~ r}9~ts to da~eTop as typical lots i~ t~e area. He does, i~ fact.
~ive t~e same right t~ de~elop this lot according to the r~les a~d
regulatfons of t~e planniDg oegartmerlt. I would ass ... me that 1ft d'e\leloping
lis lfltae lots~ fie was fill, aware sf the fat_t tflat there were
restr!ctions on setbacks Ctl Stanford Avenue. 1f he was not aware of Hat,
~he-Ill be mild'e ar. improper t:tJsiness declsioll. I feel Hat the fle-ighborhood
ind t~e City of Pil~ Alto should ~ot compensate ~im for making a bad
decision b~ 9rcnting 'im thls variance.
HlfrdTJ., t~e reg!Jlatfons also taHs about a haros'hip 10 <!elr'eTo;>ment.
Agaia. I ~ould say that if there is a hardsbip created. it was ~reated by
the owner .imseTf~ and not by any otner extraneous ~eans. He is tne onf
Who ~reited the lets. T~~ hards~ip ~as not there pre~iousl~.
[t also ti1ks abo~t negatfv! impacts on the neighborhood. ] WOQTd presu~
t~it if toe tit] of Pilo AltG. 1m its ~sdom. aces net see fit t~ put 11
$idewalts~ )'DU 'Wou1d not havE the cit, sayiog it is iI; negati\le i~acL
Jbe nr1 fact that the tit, says tllere s1HHild be i lS-foot setback
iodicate, t~a! the (jt! of ,.1. Alto, the zonin9 and tne ~1.nnin9
commlsslon feel that there .re negative im~acts on t~f n2ighborhood and
the tr.ffic. We neighbor, fee1 tnat ~y.
To me~ the ~ost i~ortant t~lng Sa this procedure is the fact t~at ~e is
cre~t'~g t~e subdi'lsion, Dot just creating a lot. He ~as stated more
than O~e on paper and at th~s hearing that ~e is g01ng tc ~e~elop t~ree
~ouses. There i5 i letter frG~ P~blic Works stating that 1f these parcels
ire to be subdhic!ed i'rItft three lots~ the llidd1e !lol.fSe 'Would },ave to be
tori down, because it sits on t~e pro;>erty line .. I would 1 itf to inow how
he plans to leep the ~~dd1e house ~t~Dut adversel, aff~ct~Mg t~e prop2rt,
line-SF At a later date, be could come back and is\ for iI; wariance for the
middle house, and ycu would have no way ef \no~ng t~at, ~"less you stop
thfs varlanct proceeding.
8s. Grete: My understanding is t~at ~. Migdal completed the ap~roprjite
Certiflcate of Compliant! process to create the~e three lots. He
reconfigured Sll: very 511' .• 11 1clts into three illgger. but sun smaller than
normal~ single-famil] lots. The middle house will sit completely DO its
own parcel.
Joe C~lonna; The original conffguritio~ i~cluded sfl lots~ If yo~ were
tD reeitablish any ~f the orjginal lot lines t~at ran ~nder t~e eXlsting
t,oUS!~ you would have to demolish that llcuse. ~ou cannot have a bouse
01/19/95
-3-
"-., .
. ', .
.• -·'}f . -"
t~.t Is oyer a propeTtl lloe. The .ppllcant, vere advised of that. The
orlglnoll1 proposed" reconf!9ur.tlon of the tnre. lots ,"ould "ave had a
propertl lfne running under the h.use. Mr. ~f9d.l then revised the plan
that en.bled "_ to keep the •• isting ~.us •• i~ludin9 setb.cks, dl,lignt
,lanes,,_ etc .. Tbe On1, tlIiDg be could root c.ompl,J ... it .. was t~e park.ing.
The current garage is on 'arcel Il and t~at is too close to the propert,
If, •• nd would ~.ve t. be demolisned. With I. 19 months. he ,.111 do~lish
tte ~xfst(~9 garage ~~d build a r.ew 9arage to satisfy the parliog
req"irement DO Lot n. 'We hve done. (011 phn thec~ cn lot 12.
!~. E~os: Are t~ere a~y plans for the exfsttng garage tG show where t~e
new ga rage 1jj 11 be?
~~: No~ ~e does not need to snow us DOW wr.ere th~ garage ~11
be, becacse he is oo'nded to ccmslrL:ct the -;arage,. i.:1d be will bring hi
plans prior to the E~d Df t~e ]e-mo~th banding period. ~eR you ire
developing single-fami11 names one at I time. one does not ~awe to g~
t~rougb ARB approval. Onll if he t~~e ~,t~ .11 three at one time we,ld he
have t~ go befofe the AR8~ He is onl~ dOlng one home right nc~,. and t~ese
are net contiguoys lets.
Membgr ef AydiencE: Are y~u t~11ing ~s t~at th~ middle house is i~
tompl fante?
Ms. tirot!; Tids bous.e H tota.~1y in tcm~,lhl)ce for that mi6dh lwt ~tl
re'9ard tel th.e setbac'ks. Ue: floor areal tfle fleigllt, etc 'lie t1alle done a
f~ll ,Ian checl. As this Jot is conflgureds this r.c~)e is i6 compliance~
Brian 0.. Cadlli. 2150-Co1umo1a. fii0 Alto:. I want to refEr to the
'hardslii; poirlL Mr~ Migdal <lrigllnll, had ev-er-y frltentfon (if d'~mclis"'ing
the e~l$tiog house and sel1i~g the pro~ert1 ~ Then ~e decided ~e wanted
t~ redefine all of these lots t~rDijgh the Certificate of (om~lfance
process a~d appl1 for a variance. Yet ~e is no~ claiming ~ hardsnip.
That is ~~t_ wfll .. ~rhnces 'Were s-et up. fie alsO' SijS 1t h fOf" the benEfit
flf fl:Jture residents_ T~at is Dot the .correct r.ation'a1 e or procedut-e fer a
Yarl3~e. The propert1 .across the street 1S a~ €xampie of .a variance
befng granted for iI property owner and llis fartli11~
Member cf Audience, (~rtner Street. Paio Alto: ] have had a disc~ssicn
vith in ar~hitect_ Mark does i~tend tc reside i~ the existing home.
There are things .Mark c:cul~ flave done te the r,ouse to ma'k.e U,e s.etbacKs
larger en tot '2~ but ~e ~anted t~ keep tne bouse pretty ~u,~ lite it is.
bE<a~se ~e does tike the home_
Robja Clari, 202~ Celumbfa Street, Pala Alto: let the record sho~ t~at &, iltroduciog a fo1der that contains iI fi~e-page letter, i10ng vit~
apprQ~imatel, ]2 pages of illustrations thot I ~ill wse during my
prese~tation ta t~e ~onfng adml!istrator. My ~fe and I ~ave l;~ed it
lO25 (clumcil Street for fl~e years. We ire homeowners and that propert1
dees directl) adjoil 1475 Stanford A~enue on the Columbii Street side.
Tbe: homecwner on tfl:e C1Ue-r sld'e. St.-san Rosenberg. -cannot be present
tonight~ She is going to scnJ~l or. t~~ east coast. ~owever, she is
rC!preser:ted b,)' an ittorne,Y and is sybstanthll, il! agreeil1e~t ~it" wnat [
.\\1 tell you,. i't~Qugh for t~e record, I a~ spea\~ng for my ~ife and for
.ys.lf. I ~i11 Dct g. through the letter ~.ge by pa~e, but I b •• ieall,
address the three pOimts V,it are reQuired to get i nriancli! --that the
Cljaj95
.j.
;'-', '
let I. unique, t~at there I •• bards~!p imposed on tn. per SOD because of
the uftfquaness of t~e lot, and t~at the war!ar.ce ~il1 net cause detrf~nt
to surroundfn9 ~ome~wners and residents.
I will s~.t .,111, to tne third point, but I .ocld like to mention that
"" tho first I'olot. Mr, Migdal baslc.lly cre .• ted • uni'!ue lot, and at He
S&~ tfme~ ~e 1s Ippl,Sng for a varfance to th2t let. That, to me, is not
I proper proced~re to fol1~. It is one thfng to l~ve on an e~fstfng
,roperty. [t is quite another to come along and create a unfQue iot, t~e~
2$t for I Ylrianee, and furt~ermcre, 1st for a ~ards~ip. He nas created
kls own ~.rd"lp, If IOU are go!,S '0 .110. aeveloper, and bom.owners to
do that lind of thing. IOU will .a .. a steady ,trull of applicants coming
,. bere. Th.t 10 .. alII not relevant t. tbe proceeding. and I understand
tnat the prfcede~t Cinnot b~ used. bowever. it yjll be used im t~is case,
Whether we like II or not.
h,t lIE cover tne Utrd pofElt .. wbic.l!i relites .dire1:t1.1 h me. ] ql.Jote from
the lonfD9 bQ~t. -Tbt wirfance yill not be detrimental t~ ~urrounding
propert} ownerS or res~dents.-tet~5 k!ep i~ mind t~at ~e are ta1ifng
IbC'ut the nrian(e teday. No ... da"We detenlirl! if the variance is
detriment.' to surrDundi~ property owners arld re)id~nts? There ire
several ~ays. ~ne ~1 is to ast the~. list tne aud1ente today. jyst by
rifsing ,our ~and, how ~anl of you live i~ the imrnedlat! rfCloit1 of thls
house? Row r.a~1 of you iTe agal"st the 3~ant;ng of t~is .ariance? How
roan1 Qf 109 are fo~ it? i~ere are no sho~s of ~an~s. [do nnt co~nt the
.app1'icant and the. ftitl,lre residEr:"it ,,1;"5e estr-\i'll lias [lOt closed. That
persoD legall} fs not i re$ident~
~y is the ,arianc! constdtre4 detrfmentil to t~e neighb~rhoDd? Why do
these ~eo,l. object? obi ~o I objet\? I ~;11 t.ll yO" whJ ! objett. Th.
proposed nouse is 90169 tG be In eno~aU$ eyesore to t~e comm~nltJ~ It is
going to be a~ OHG ~OUSf. Yo~ Irs going tD ~ome dawn the street and see
t~ls thing, and you are gcing t. say. Oft ~y God. Some other people are
gOiog to come down the street and sal, Oh ~1 $od, this is gre.t. They .re
going to b. drj.ing ,ietup troct. witk "., !o the baCK of their piCKUp
lrocks. T~i5 thing f. going to be thr'st out there l.t. the setback where
no other ~ouse is~
When I first lalted tG-MiTt. ;nd I JIll/I! tlUed to l'Iari. a number of times
about t~fs. he said, t~erl ire I whcl' lot ~f bo~ses i~ the setbacc.
Vel), if ever) other tHHtse is i. the s,eotbad., that 1S fii'1e wit~ Ile~ Build
your bouse~ Being I s'f~~tlfic sorl. I did I qualitative analysis, a~d it
'l~ net realll 100\ lil' t~.r' were t~.t •• n¥ bouses II the settacK. f
said t~ myself, ~ark Slfd tn~(1 .ere 21. Ind ~& is I scientist~ too. He
~.s In ~.S. Robl. (lart, Pi.D. went QuI there on • Saturday wit' • tape
trJeUIJ('i:', etc ... ir;o ithlilll, lleisurtd the 'bOI.lSU h the 1·) zone ef ColTege
Terrace ~fC.b runs froe AmheTst tl Wil1ia-s Street. J im not concerned
abo~t the commercial zone on Stinfcrd ~ve"~ •. Wi ire not ta1k1ng about
Evergreen fa~kl ~ich il ~n the ct~~r sldf cf Stanford Avenoe~ We are
tilling about the 1·1 zone of C.ll>g' 'orraco, Amherst t. Williams. ihe
first diagra~ shows the resalts Df -1 survey~ ~rk ~as iI (Opy~ too.
fhere ar~ line out of 38 ~ouses And SORe chur,~es ~it~il the setback, is
best IS I <an d~terc;oe. I .t.ppe~ it orr. I ~.,e • three-foot ~.c.. I
did" oo,t want to go 'Witlt iI ta~e lleasure hi peo,.!e-s fro;'Jt yarc!"s on a Sunday
Clorlir:g everywhere. especilll, h t~t u; II. J c:easured them er.aug'h Hat
after awn'le, 1 could tisualize it. Once 1DD ha~! seen one bc~se at tne
.. '.
.'
setb4t\ lnd yo. stand parillel t. It. you tan t.ll. aut I did pace off
e'Verl l~ftg1' .. lJOU5!'. and J1ctte-d tflem on the-cOll'1puter~ Here they ;ere.
~rt IS t~. setback line. 1 found oine. of thern out of 40. T~.t is •
11gftlffCInt ~~r~ depending en"your polet of wfaw~ Only three of those
I'ft. were sfgfliffcint11 ilto t~e setback. EJ significantly) I mean by
~ thin. ccupl. af feet. Those thre~ ire at 745 Stanford Avenue, a
po.e\ wit~.n IS-foot setback, 961 Stanford A"nue, a ~o"se wit. an
JI.foot ,.tbiCk. and lQSl Stanford AvenuE ~ith , ain2-fDot setback.
rftf coall".'og pages will show e.c~ block wit~ the location and
~~t .. te size of tac' bouse. and there is a picture of the bloct. Yeu
will eollcl t~lt 145 Stanford Avenue is • s •• 11, single-story house
Ippreli.lltll SO years old. 963 Stanford Avenue is • Single-story ho",e
.pp ..... i .. hly 50 ye.r. 010. I05l Stanford Avenue, whid is the "orst one
~t\ I .i~·foot encroac~mcnt. is the smallest ho~se 1 ~ave e~er seep.. [t
is lOre 1ft. I ~hQebcx. It is literall, a~ut is wide is mj i~.
fln"ir.g loot.IHi at thilt pfctl"jre 5 I vant tG shOw-,)'OU SOfM! other pichl"es.
nerl is • rt .. ,rhble cOi'lfonllit.J witJiin the setback on Stil1fof'd ~.venue.
(!-Ie 5"~ ot.her 'bouSfS on Star.ford Avern~e iA cOl'lfonance tG the setback}
~ 1~ It t~rl pfctcre. Tbts is approximatel] t~e size of the house
Hid is be~Oi prcposed tel be piJt en tne propert.1 • ..,-1 tn the seccrrd star,)' 11
fett 'rPl! the prope:-t1 1 f!'le and t~e front pord six feet from the property
l~r.e. 1 dOD~t Vi~t to TDot at t~at tf~d of i house in t~at pcsltfoD, nor
dots l~t nfig~borr.ood. The ~ouse is grosslJ nonconfQr~ing to the rest ~f
St.nford Avenue ja the R-J zone Qf College Terrace between Am~erst ar.d
Yi11fiM. IUs is a qo!Jalihtf\le an.lysis. It is a two-star,. 11Duse Cif
apprDx;~itel, this size t~at ~ill go tnere. (t ~ould be bu11t tD the
IIU'. It 15 going to 100\ florri bh. 1 ara. [I,ot address.lt'lq the arcl\'itectul'"a\:
qual it, Df the ~ou$e. It could be the most bea~tifcl ~ouse i~ t~e world.
Tkfs Is just I bQl1di~g t~at you are going to come down and wonder ~ow It
eyer get there. [vii!Tyt~ing else is 25 feet back. Another speaker wl'1.1
spe.t t. the •• fet, i •• ues.
As an fllDedl"ite neIghbor .. ObVl0{Jsl1 t'fu: issue Df property v.altJes comes
i.. Sa~an Rose~berg bas ri~sed t~at issue. To me, t~at is not a z!jor
issue becl~se 1 do ntl plin to ~o~~. I co~11 argue t~at i ~ant the
propertl ,alues lowered in t~at ne13~bor~ood so that ~y propertJ taxes
woul~ go down. B~t t~at is a somewhat selfis~ iigwment. ~at I a~
coneern~ about is, wh1 weald t~e pro~ertl 'ilues go down. oat t~at they
.~9ht 90 down. The, .nIl gc down beca~se there is goiog to ce a~ uglJ
~OgS! ther!. Peoplt will realize thit so~t'lng real 1, ~ffrd is g010g O~
bere4 ro~ ~an stand on the sidewilt .nd practically be able to reac~ into
the kitc~.' winlf,,"" .f t~at ~,,".e, is I tOO "IU Ue one .t lOB sta.fora
Ayenue il the summer~ I cOY1d.have ta.ken 'her bna\fast. The imposed'
decrease fa ~ropertJ vaTces ~ll be i ~ards~iy on tne existing res;d~nts
Qf t~fs nelg~borhood. J d~~'t thfnt there is an] arguw~nt on t~at.
~eturling to folDt Il~ ~jc} f bave bee~ iddressi~g. wlll this w~rfance be
detT;me~tal to $urro~ndiog propert, owners and resldents2 Yes. it will
be. I Mile just givel:! you a tH.:mber of reilsons wfl}. T!1e wisual irnpa-c.t is
going t. be .bys •• 1. Tbere I. no getting .round t~.I_ T.is is one of the
1I0st ,isible corner proper-lies on Stanford A\lenue~ It is He-fint one
~~~ See when 10U go through thit !top sign It aowdc;~ Street. This t~iog
is going to hit you 11 the eye. Pecple will thlnk tn€re is ~ bank t~ere~
01/19/9S
-6-
,
,';:."
·: ',,,:
, • ___ 'C
f
;-.
cr ask, ~en did they build. botel be,e. I don't w.nt to live next door
t. that, an~ neither does SU"n. Feop1. dQ not WI.t t,ls i. thel,
netghborhooc!. T~el ate telling you that. for every rET.On that is
present todal, t~ere ire Manl MOre people out t~ere that we ca~ and ~11
brIng I. to fut",e pr~eedin9" I will stop at t~l. poi.t, as there are
other 'p"akers. I .mold like you t. r.ad ~y Jetter. I have .1ready
talted to yotl fa great dehll ibout this, i.rld J f!a'Je lIlanJ more argument,s.
UI:iIt, I will not 90 into today. but you cannot a!"'g\J.e with thes.e pictures.
You cann~t argue ~t~ the g~oss no~tonfo~ity.
as. 1jrpte: Han1c. you for Jour teStimotlJ.. I will rewiew your
doc~ntltfQD. J would encourage you to bring up all ~f your <cncer~s
today. If yoo or someone el,. appeals my decls;on, yoo rol! be held to
~isc~ssing cnl1 those fssues raised toda,. Tkfs is the appropriate forum
'for all.of your conCErns~
ftr, (lirk: It IS all ift ~rit;"g. That Is for the public record. J
~th~Qld the rigbt to bring those up 1& f~t~re proceedings~
Kathlee~ Q:Jr~am, l03g Dartmouth Street. Palo Alto: My busband and I have
lived It this add~ess s~nce 1954. I do Dot went to repeat w~et has
,1re-acjJ been. said. but one Clf the lIijo-r concerflS 'ilie lIa'Jt! is \nat iA Pil~Q
Alto" WE! fli'l'E ill esta~l is-ned lJroc.eu for deil irog .. iU, im.ca..:ts Oil
neighborhoods (if this lIagnitude. Mr. Piigdal ob",;:ous.ly Jlas 'had El(pert
legal. finageling adwice. 1ssisted by idwice fro~ the planning
department~ T~at apPlrentl, haS led to the fact t~at this is t~e onl1
oppcrtunitJ fer publ" input for what is. ;m fact~ a three-lot
s~bdiy}s;on. I don't believe that the cit1 council nor the planning
(ommission i~tended t~e tertiff(ate Df (omplfance t~ be ~sed l~ t~ls
fis~ion tl get around ARB ap9rov~1. If ~e need to find out for sure~ t~en
"" w111.
To address the rarlance 1SSU!~ I ~Q~Td also lite to speak ts the fiel t~at
~e teard agill today ~ ~ery clearly stated threat that jf t~1S wariance is
not ~ranted. the~ an ugly. railroad car ~ouse .o~ld be built. according tQ
tne lot Hn.es wflfcf:l" acco-rding to 'Wtlit tlas been stated,. br.: .... e been
regitimate1, dra~~. That is something we are not sure is t~e <ise.
He does ~ive the right to build a 19 I ]9 foot hoose with no further
discwssioD. If he chose to assert_ that rfgt.t. he would Db~iouslJ be
redUCing the Yllue of whatever im~rovements he 'Mould be Irlaki~9. Me would
be reduc1ng 'is own p;operty ralue if he lives next door. is he <laims~
SO I 60n T t think he ~ould reall] tilt suc~ ar. ittio~ tnlt ~ould be sa
detrimental. However. it 15 clear that he does ~a~e options. There is no
b.rds~lp bere. ~it" the owners~ip of tbfs one 12S x l>O·foot,. there are
roanj o~tiQns for econo~ic use of this let. The ~eople present tDday ire
f,ot here to opp~se I\S r19'ht fot' a.n ec.o~{lmic use of \tis prope.rt)' ~ \le are
~pposed to t~e subversion of tne process a~d te tne application for i
'fariance c:h:irning it is i t1al"'dsbip 'When the conditions of t~at hards~ip
were .created bjl' tlls o.,.,..n actions.
Spe<lficill,. I ·.ant t~ address two points~ One is, ~hy is t~ete i
25·foot setback along St,nford A;enuf?
~~: There ire severil rei sons y~y a speci~' setoact maj be ~laced
on lets. One reaSon can be to accommodate f~ture street ~dening.
Dljl9/9S
-].
.'
.---_ . ..." f'~ -. ----~--.,;
.y
-'"> ".,. -
si
Another can be beciuse t"e street is determined to be specfal f~ some ~al.
S~~ IS I bou1e~ard. If I street is espe<fal1, ~ronounced i~ the
-COOl!lunitl, spechl futures soclt is extTil 'phntings er a landscaped fledi.an
lal be loc~ted 11 the street. To ~y kncw1edge~ the ~;t1 .s not planning
en widenfng Stanford Avenue.
Pls lr Dyrbam: Tbe bc~se we iTe hlting ahout shoL1ld ~a\ .. e I tJsefltll life of
S~ years. ~at has tn~ traffic increase on Stanford Avenue been ove~ the
last 50 ye!Ts? the actions t~at ~re be)ng ~Qos'dere~ is part ~f t~i~
.arflnce should be taleR on a ~uch longer limeframe tha~ whet~er or ~ot
the transportitfo~ department, i. its lc~9~range ~1inn;~g, b1 wblc~ they
mean ten YEars fr~·now~ Bight now, at morllog and evenf~g rwsb hoors~
Stanford Avenue is ,ppr~ac~ing the maximum c~rryiDg capacity fQr a
two-1ane road. II my lifetim •• unless Palo Alto r •• l1~ s;9nificantlJ 60e,
cllange Hs, reliance Oil !-lngle-occ~pant ve~fcles, there Will be iii demand to
widen t~e street. So for the CitJ af Pilo Alto to take a voluntary action
tD encroac.h Oil that 25-foot setback and a110," an expensive 'lOuse tt) be
b~11t tc What would be ~t~iB )] feet ~f tne propertJ line ~akes no_
seRse. if yea lIave to wlde~ t~e street, (;od forbid. 'We will all be d(J'A'Tl
tiere protesting Uat .. but H JOU halle to remo.:e ]053 Stanford~ and jf you
'bave t., remo'lI'e the other 'Small !louse that is Enc.roac'dng r t~ii!:t is not
going to c~st i great dea). lh~J probably ~i11 ~ave fa11en rlown on thEir
own by that lime. But this is so~thing ~jffer€nt.
{ven before t~at occurs, the surfacing Qf our 'strEet is im terdble
~~ape~ Vhene~er the C\t, decides the1 are going t~ deal ~ith t~at. t~e1
'Will have to face .. hat MroO Jlj'gdal <:alls an unusuair.1 wiae parkfng 1ane_
It is~ 11 fact, a noncompliant park;ng and tit! lane. rt is a ~ajor bike
ro~te. [t is ~sed mo~e and more all the time. Stanford Avenue is u~ed up
and down by Sta~for~ students* <ommuters.tQ Stanfo~d. lids 90109 to fil!~
lids gOlhg to.JQrd~~~ kids g(Jfng to £S(Ondlda. So is I understand it~
wheo t~at read is re3urfaced. ~ic~ is not that far tff. t~eJ do not kave
the ~i~th t~ illo~ that bile lane. Yet. they do net ha~e any ~ptions~
The )andowne~ on the et~er side is Stanford.
f am the P.l.A_ traffic ~afet, represe~t2ti.e for Escondido School and
have been for five yeaiS. I also serve Of] the P.l ..... (ouncll f.or trifffc
safetl~ I J!ave devE:loped the safer school commute resolutfon wfJ'icb is
901n9 before the cltl ~ouncll. 1 am very CQnc€;~ed for safety on our
streets for blcycllsts. and pedestrians. .A.n encroachment .. r t~is magnitude
makes DO sens~ frOB i safet, pof~t ~f view. in t~rms of the p~ople living
fl tftat hDuse and on901~9, increasing traffic. ~ic~ is, at t~ls pci~t,
goi&g DO an i~eri3e of 31 mlle$ p~~ t.our. Unle~s ~e get some diffe~e~t
enforceme~t, the risks of the increased volume are such t~at ~e are not
tlllir.g negligible safet1 issues. rt is directlJ agaiAst the city's
hterest t'!l crt't!h such an iDtrlolsion ;ata the setback whet! the property
oWner dees ~ave ether options.
~s. Crote; ~ER peop1e ire bicycling
be on t~is person's p~ivite propert14
there some di~i'lshed ~isibilitJ?
do~n Stanford Av~~uel they will not
How is t~at a safetJ lssue? Is
~s~ Durban!:
the Il.ouse.
I was talking about the ;ncrease~ number of cars gOing into
That ;s the safety risk.
01/19/95
-8-
'.
-.... ~" ""
• • j
:.:.;,~
<,.
Ile!nbor of Audience: Tbe 90rch step is Iiterall, flv. feet from tr,e bike
lane~ ~ we want to ~reat~ t~at kind of publ;, liability?
PL'. Grot.: I would like to re.l~ people to pl ••••• t,t. your •• me
cltar11 before you s~ea~~ and not to interrupt eac~ gt~er~s comme~ts or ~y
Questfons to I $yeale~~
M •. Purham: The .ther puiot I want to bring out c~es from the wort!
hve done on St"ford A"enue trofflc Issu.s t~at led to r.y hvohement II
the Stlnford UD1~ersit] enwir!)nmental impact repor-t for the'r general
,lip.. There a~e some thicgs that I noted im ~~ letter t~at art extremel1
rtl.evant, ~ithout 9<>in9 lot •• n of lhe dehlls as to why lhoy did lh;s
sound study, I will just say that I excerpted thIs fro~ the Santa (l,ra
Gene~al Use Permit f~r Stanford Cni~ersitJ~ tne fl~al environmental impact
report. ~. ~igdal ~a1 I copy of itt as wel'. The relEvant poi~ts are
t"'at ~fQ thy tid th\s sound study, tfoo,ey ... easlJ.red' CIOlse on 'Stinfo~d
Avenue at two places. ome was east of Hano~er Street~ wt'ch is two blocks
towards £1 (amfno from t~is bouse. Tbe~ th~y also measured tne decibels .
east ef Peter Coutts ... boilt five blocks the oHler wil. Ttlc-meils~remeriU
~re~ tne ~axl~u~ iRstantaneous, cailed the L~ax dec~~l le~~ls~ ~ere 18
decibels east of Hanover. and 11 ~.st cf Peter Coutts, ~ss~Dtiil1J the
same. Tne maximU./'l pea\: hour avenge vas 68. "'.1most the same. fror-:; wflat
we know itlOtJt traffic 01) Shnford Avenue .. there is every reiS·on to bel ie\le
that the on1, turRing street between Peter (cutts and HanO\ler jS BOllldolC.
There are equal amounts of traffic co~fng from both directions. Ine
~easurements it tnese·two places on eitner s,de of t~lS house are very
aCCuflte estimates of ~at the sound ley~ls ire it t~e interseetfoa of
Columoli and Stanford Avenue.
T~ese sour.d engineers~ by some tec~nique, <in transfer. these ~~asureme~ts
hit" contour lines according to the count] criteria fOf" nclse. Hey then
estimated ~O~ far from <urbslde you w~u1d nave to go, wit~ these
measurements., tf get below the 5S deCibel contour .. wbicJ:1 is the Jower
level Qf th~ <ategory critical for resioentiil ~$e. It ~as 40 feet from
<:Llrbside~ If yoe go to Ue lower Hmit of the caut i.onary Je"Vel for the
count] so~nd standards .. ~ic~ is S5 decibels .. t~at is ll3 feet from
Stanford Ayenue. Therefore, IS J state i! my letter, and t~is _as ia
1989~ Speeds ha' .. e lncreisedj •• 01 ume has increased'. As the report
(:Qnclgdes .. -It can tle easil,1 seen Hat the preser;t expostJre of tt1e l'romes
fa Pali) A1ts oordering: Stanford Avenue to pr{)blem.atic noise lh'els is
wirtuall; Issured bJ their relative proximft,1 to t~at roa~a1.-Unless
the Cltl of Pile Alt. drastfcall, changes the amount of traffic or the
spee~ mf traffic ~n Stanford AVEnue, if y~u ta\e this aetlo~ to permit t~e
building ~f a ho~st It sucR I gross e~r~ichment int{) the 2S-fcot setback,
~lc~ ~as put there for the publl( good, you are opeaing yourse1f up to
demands for nois! mitigation, ~ic~ J don't t~l"k the Clty reillJ wants
them t. do.
II t~e end, 1 wa~t say somethioQ else ~hlC~ 1 sa'd j~ ~i letter, ~bic~ \s
that Pal. Alt. Is f.l1 of NIMBY types. College Terrace .s not f.ll of
'lMBY types. We are fr{)m 111 walks of life. Our neighborhood .ssocfat;~n
includes rer.ters, ind we ~ave • sreat tim~ it our neighborhood ,ielics.
Some of those people could flJ firstelass every time, and ot~er. have
never beelJ on an ai:Tl'lane. We "'aile a lot {),f d;versitJ. We enjoy that. nis is not •• antI-development group, but PIr. Migdal does "ve options
for the economic use of ids 'property \ffllcJl do not reQjJ1re the detrimental
Ol/19/95
+
.'.
. ~. -~ ,-.
'."
hirm that he is pr~posiD9~ We ~ave some ~ery serfo~s questions about thr5
proc~ss. i$ well.
~S' Srote: The Certificate of (ompl+ance prG~ess ~as been used 18 i
similaT ~an~er. as ~s ~sed OD t~is l~t, throu9~out the cit, f~r ~a~y
years, When parcels ~rt be'~9 rec~nff9ured and mad~ more (~nfD~in9 i~in
they .ad be •• pre<iously.
ltar), Hgrawa" 20;4 tplumbh Street. hlc! Alto: ] ill'''! bee~ 1 hir:g it
t~ls addre,s for about ten lea's. I work .t St.nfor4 On;vorsltl ~.r. I
aN I facMlty ~mber. I very ~~ch lite the comm~nit1 [ lf~e il. I was i
Jitt1e surprised becaus.!! "'art. lIIho 1 ives-directl, across the street (roo
he, J rarely see~ My feeiing is ttJat I +il.'l1 I'!ot "o'er), llappy about tt):ree
~ouses i. I ver$ lic~ nElghborbood. I think ,t detracts fro~ tne kind cf
cOlmlunitl I see tlere. ibe rtcti:Orl of "having i }louse ",-itl;. in overbang very
close to Stanford UnlversltJ mjg~t c~anse the 'ook of t~e "efghbor~ood.
The two hO(lses. on u,at block rigflt now are bon hrge f;o(Js~s. on very large
lots~ Making t~e nefghborhood seem ve~y spac10as. So I a~ not ia faver of
the variance. What I object to the ~ost is the implied threat that if you
don·' gTve ~ tits Yarfance. I a~ going to build t~ls ~ery U91~ ~ouse. )
canf)ot do anlthin9 to stop you from. doing ...nat you cl)oose-to do s bow! I am
~ne persoc you should never push around by threatenl~g. This sounds ~ore
lite I threat than anything e1s2 I have ever near-d. nat upsets roe more
than anything. It 15 '15 decfs'on~ b~t you are not going to 9e-t me t~
approve something by saying V,al ; f you don't do tMs. I am go;)ing tv do
something you ~11 like even less.
)!ember of Audience: IlWaTt a lot is the rlel~kborhood. and fir. 'Ilgdal 'Was
~ssertin9 that he ~l~ been li,inS ~t 147, Stlnf~rd Aven~e. He has
occupied tfle flouse on occasion ... ar)d perhaps more h recel'lt monttes .. but Ue
~eneral look of that ~o~se is sucb that the own~r ~as not lifted a finger
OQ aaf.tenance since purcnasiDQ it~ [t is true t~at ~aiDtenanC! ~!~ begun
during t~e last days before the salt~ but since ~~ M1gdal has been the
owner. larqe trees bave bee~ .11ollled' tc elf! and bushes llave encroac:~ed to
half of the sid~lt. Despite ~olite requ!sts. r.othing ~as been done. ~e
all bave different standards. b~t there are regulations f~ Pa1a Alta about
maintalaing Jo~r propertJ. and Mr. ~;9dal ~as not fol1cwed the~ until be
was. threatened with cit1 actionr To heir b;~ say today Uat "he has faneR
hi love -with ills house and -will lIa'ke it kis perll'!anent residence comes as a
b!g surprise to me ... because no Dn~ I inov ~o ~as t~3t feeling about i
boust would allow a bjrc~ tree right outsi~e the wind~ tm d;e~ rhe9 ~et
it ~s dead. to knock it down i~d leave the branches ill over the front
Ilrd. Tbe imp~ess{o~ of anyone wha goes by is one Df a~ atandaned ~ouse.
The newspapers ~ave accumulated. The branc~es are \;tt'~9 you iR t~e face
as you "'icycle fI thE bike latle. iifs is oil pret!nse cf -mat is goi[lg eln
for l1anfpalitiO!'l. He (;tes II tne dOCllmentation Hat he Jlas siJ: till
busnes t~at screen 'i~ house from the sidewalk. These sf! tall busnes
wer~ so poorl, ~a1at.ined th~t wheQ he ~ad to cut them back d~e to
encroachme~t on the sidewalk. t~ey were ~ostll dead. ~is o~n ~ictures
sholied tha t.
~arit2a Fran\f~r\, 14&0 {pl1ege Av~no~. Pilo Alta: I ~ave lived at t~is
address for 18 years, and I wish to submit. letter. ~1 husband. ~o
jailS ~e ;m ~ritfng t'fs tetter~ ~as li~ed in (ollege Terrace either at
1460 College Avenue or al 2109 Col umbii Street. fo, >S years. I have
~rltten about some cf the! POilltS. a1readJ' ad'd'ressed. We were Hie people
01/IS/.5
-1 ~-
..
. -,"-
~ ..... -...
-:;,~.:~ ~--,-
-.' ..
Who ~.ll.d Mr. Rich cabrera fl the I"pecti,n SeT>lces of t~e Building
De •• rtment l •• t spring b~."se we tal. that route down Celumbl. daily from
DUr !loClse li!1ther to p!d: '-I,P or deHver oIJr chlldren to Esc.ondido 5(hoo1.
At I ,ert.fl P01Rt, it becime impossib1e to walk on the sldewalk be,a~se
tt ~5 sO o~'rgrown. ] spate to Mr. Cabr~ra thls mcrllog. but they do pot
keep re(;ords ()n t,.is 50rt of thing, so he was not 5-IJre, byt be 'Was. able to
co~firm t~at ~e bad a~de two offfclil not1flcition~ to cl!an up. He did
Dot re,.ll the dates, but he ~ad returned o~r phone (Ills. I had been o~t
there sever.l times ond told .Im that it was still not cleaned up and the
lids cao't get to sC~GOl for sever.l .oot~ •. Mr. Cl.rl .ctu,11, cleaned
up the part that was on ii. 'ide. Eventually, the other side was cleaned
up. I Wilk by there dal1,. and went there just yesteTda! (orning b~ from
_Cub Scout.. Toere .,5 garbig" and de.d debris there. Tl" i, not.
person Who lives i. tlls neighborhood and tat •• ~.r. of it. £very other
borne where peop1e are li,ing t~.re loak' ~.ll r.alnt,ined. Mr. tabrer.
remembered well ~a~fng gone out t~eret actually. and remembered we11 the
stat. ~f It and b"log to notifJ Mr. ~;gdal .• bo"t that.
Annette Bials'on:: I rtprese~t Susan Rosenherg. tfle inmedhtet, adjacent
Dei!ilhbor 1iYfng: at 142S Stanfo!'d A-,enue. She is at school h the east and
~~s unable to male t~ls ~ear;o9~ Part of ~at you a~f getting fro~ tne
audlenc.e is ob-wious fr'l*stril.tion~ and 11so a Gt!estion cf the credibilit, of
the appHcant. YOIl 'have tD understand Hat iii lot of emctioD is tied up iB
t.is. a~d understandablJ so. ~ile both JOU an~ Mr. Colonne na~~
indicate~ t~a~ the ;rocess gf using a Certificate Qf (cm~lfance im t~is
fa~nion ;s perf~ctlJ acceptab1~~ I b~S to ~iffer vit~ you. ~ile 1t may
be it closed issue now,. it 11141)' b! something Uat .. e tla ... e to raise wiUl the
planning commlssion and t~e <ijtJ council. [A revie~;~g the Pilo Alto
Munfctpal code. wbicR I was dOiog list ~lg~t~ I noted the ~se Gf the
tertificate of {ompliance ia DU~ Code $ectior.s 21Q&.50, 2108.&0 and
2108.7~. It repeat!ail st~tes t"at any ip~licition, ~etner ft be for a
lQt lfr.e idjyst~rlt (jr a let line remova},. !las to be is cOl"lformance wiU
IiI Df the req~ireme~ts. Dtherwise t~e appl;,ation must be processed as I
m!D~r Dr ~jo~ subdivisioD.
Section 2108.60 says ttiat any Q'Jestlons t, be rt!sDlved ,-,ould require He
minor ~r ~ajor subdivision rither than i Certificate cf Comp1iance. [t is
clear t.at the appli,ant ~., ~.d advice, Whether fro. the counsel of oi,
~hoosfng Or fram the ,1annfog department or (it] cou~cilJ but it is a
qusstioo f()r all of Io!S. The oi'll, [.o~portunftJ we ~a\le is to iluestioo t~e
yarfance~ so I ~11 tr1 t~ sta) fOCUS2d on the varian,!. Tbe fact tnat
this j~ reall, a step se~uence for a ~in~r subdffisioQ ~hculd be kept fa
.'nd. }~ ot~ers ~ave poimt~~ out. that is what (reates the ~o-called
f:ard'shijl that the applicant is (:Q.mplia.iliog of.
'olng bact to th~ municipal code and lOOKing at tne fir-dings t~at you must
aate to grant i ~arfance. I do ~Dt see any gf those findings being
applicable tc this situatio~. The term ·unique-~as been ~sedt b~t tnat
is not actual', is the code. The language that I rec.11 is -exceptional
or extraordinary ctrcumstan,es or conditions applicable to the pr~pert1
fF.wolved t~at do not i~plJ generally to propert~ i. the same district.
The grantfr.g of the app1icitfnn for the ~arjance is ~ecessar~ fo~ tne
preservation and •• Soymeot of • subst.n\i.l propert, right of the
appl ical"lt and to &lre'w'el'lt unreasonable prope~t.1 loss or unnecessary
liards1ll",P, a:"ld that the granting of the application 'Will riot be detrimental
Dr injurious to propertJ' Of" htlrcve-me~ts 1m ttle .icinitJ' and will n:)t be
01/19/95
·11'
•
detrimentll to the p~tlic hei1th. geneT.l welfare Qr convenience~· J dQ
not see -merE he has an) of those lhrie.
It is I sittiitfoc fl whfc~ warian(ts should ~nl, be granted iR
~xtriordi~aT) <iTcum~tlnce5. ThlS is not the case i~ t~E £urre~t
applicatfon. because t~e circ~stances ire of his ~akfn9. I. loottc~ It
U. fmpa<:t 9" U •• n.!9~bors, I th!nt IOU .hould .1 •• loo~ .t to_ imp"t 00
the T.t, t~at be fs cr •• t;og. There i. r.ot~fng f. the code s.,tfon that
Slys JOu Dfll~ loot It those thlt ire bere .. be-catlse you are going to hille
bomeown!rs buying those properties. if ~ot imm!dillelJ, it some paint i~
tho future.
lb ••• od for the 25·(00t speci.l •• tback I •• omet~!ng that •• s you .tated
it. Irt f-or pa_II"~'~es of .. idenin<j the r~ild or other p'Jrpos.es 'Sudol' a.S
,lan!~~9S or oth~r effects ta ~ale the road $omenow distfn9uis~ed from
Dther roads~ I t~fnk the pcint t~at ~as rils~d by Kat~l Durha~ is yerl
tru~. What ~e have th~re rignt DOW is i Donconfcr.ing combined bike and
par-tieg lane . .At t'he time tllilot rOid ilo rtsurfac~d~ that lane-I'!i!lJ "ave to
be br~ught up to conformance. So wit~ the possible expansion Df stanford
Av!nue ta add another lane, you ~iJ be lo~~fng at a sub$tantial impact O~
existing lots to crE~te i conforming lane ~fr~ parling and bicycles can
OCcur.
Another issue is t~e ARB revTew of t~e subdivision process. J am looking
at t~e fact t~al if hGme~ are singularl, developed. they ne~d not ~aye ARB
revfew~ Jet tlere is .e situation where the applicant l'1as de-ad, il1dicited
that be Jllans 'OD developing: three lots and Hlree home:s. Ttle fact Ulat
they are not befng done at the same time 10es agai~st the s,irit uf the
code. That is -why I ,'have cited it as. an exception to the stiind'ar~ use elf
the Certificate of Compliance. ~tle the specific language of the code
Ill! be somethfng tfl.at can be Jllaced on .is slde,. I fJlink the spirit of tP1e
law 1S suc~ that the ARB needs to be fDvolted i@ t~lsp as stown b1
everyone beicg bere tODtght. The ripple iG:l.pitct ef 'What he is doing m.ust
be considered. I ~ave not~fbg f~rther to say !xcept tnat t~e f~~t tr.at so
many De~g~bors lre bere i5 tellfDg~ and .mat Is m~st telllng is that my
client owns sf I lots just like the applicant does. It would b. to her
iateresl tl sa,_ there goes i preced~nt, and I could dev~lcp three lots.
J <auld mat! a l~t gf money here~ but tkat is nat what s~e is lcterested
i •. Tbe bouses t~at she and Mr~ Migda1 own were bu11t l~ the 1920~. and
are interestfng barnes. T~at part of Stanford Avenue is considered ~y the
resldents of I'lud! elf PilQ A1to to iliLye i ul'llQ.ue fleighborfwod character.
The creation of lots and lne bouse that would ~e b~ilt if the wariance was
granted is ~ot it·t~eplog with that fleighbornood character. Whl1~ it 1S
not ta my (lient~s economic l~terest~ she woald ver) ~UCA appreciate th~
variance Dot belDg grante~. We will also be looking at ~ether or not tht
Certiffcate ~f Compliance was appropriite11 ~sed here.
SklP ~F2dden. 1501 Stanford Avenue, Pile Alt~: I just want to say that
we rtc~~tl1 moved i~to the ~~use directl] across on (olumb1a~ Ve lre
Igaiflst granting the l'arhnce~ ]f you get back tfl the-Jlarcrshi,p isslIe. is
f understand' it. sne did state to me the cUer da,1 Hat the oW.ner of the
propert} filly l~tended to develop the ~ropertJ for three units before he
eveo bought it. I ~acf stated tfl.t f. fact, I .. ould prefer M didn't build
anything over there when ~e appro~cned roe for s~pport for the bouse, but
t~at is DOt the issue. ~e onl, bo~gnt t~e propert1 i~ ord?r tu develop
it, s.o I g'oJes.s f\e then Ifls.ed t~i.s Certificate of (!)l1\p1icr\ce to get ar()uT'ld
Ol/l9j9S
·Il·
-,-;'
• -' *."
·--....
the arc'fte<turll review process. At the same time. the ~ards\ip t~at he
has created whea 'au look It t~is PQtentt~l De~ owner. t"at ~3rticwlar let
. being involved. I '-'"t)cld antfc~'pate Uat t11e (.ondHion of tf1e co~trict
~)Qld be t~it you get t~e varian(e in there. J ~ould hope it is a
c~ndftfGn Df the contract. J1 is net i hards~ip for t~is potentfal owner
of the propert,. be<.us. he has the ri9~t not to bu~ tne lot. If not, it
shoald ~av~ been disclosed ~p fro~t what is gOiDg on. So t~ere is no
lIardsbfp for the '~ture owner of tfle pro,Pt1rt.1. since he does Dot .ha· .. e te
buy the propert]. I t is b Is cllofce to bu~ the propert].
Alsos there is DO hards~l~ for the existfng Qwner c! the propert1 ~ecause
~e auted the hrdshil' by Gh!dlog the lots the Wi1 he did" It yl11
defilitelJ nave • detri~nt.l impact on ~y .few to the •• st. i. my
oplafon. I .. dirottl, across the street fra. this partieolar propert!.
djrectl,_Jcross on (olijmbfi~
Additionalll, J think it "'ill have a" Impact on t~e safet] of the dlldre.
and pede5trja~s~ is ~el1 as biters in t~e area~ Curr~fitl, at the end of
Columbia on bot", sides {and J d-;d oot rJE-iSUrt it] but there are
appro~;mate11 teD feet of red zone for ~o pari1ng. J hop! that is gofng
to be add-ressed somehow. There 'Wi] 1 be an i;l(:reased need for off-street
parking~ 'Whe~ a ?louse takes up the entir~ lot. I don't know· \fflere tr.ey
are going tD Pl.lt .a garage. Also .. 'tisibilitl_ ".5 yCIl travel down
COiumoia, ~ have just re~enl1J purchased the piopertl? and not only do
cars go to the end tf (D7umbia p park and lliaH to Star.ford' Unlversit].
They tiS! it as i publ fc patting lot. nit is just an c.rgument for rlot
developi.rlg the arel because it rean, can't handl e ar.s mon traffi<:~ 1'" DlY
0pl;ioc. (~lumbl~ Street or Stanford Avenue. People do park Tight lB
front Df OlJr bouse OPl Stanford JI._'IE"n.ue-Gnd waH over-t, the Stanford
camptls. Hl.t ..nole strip is i public parking lot. Biken are going down;
the <ars .re i~ the ~1 on Stanfo~d as ~ell as Columbia. ]f t~at tause
does 9rotrude out l!tQ t~e corper s~ttack~ t~ey won't see <ars. On our
side--of Columbh .. it is full, hedged. Tbere is no "isibility as lOU Jocl
~p. Bites <onstantl, eorne along without stoppfng. and ~a\e a hard right
tura around there at their own risk~ gr~nted. That house will
sfgnificantiJ imyed'e the 'ihibnft)' of tila! eRtfre a·rea. So there are
some safetJ concerlS t~at ~hoaTd be look2d at.
Obvlousl,. the ~oise is gOing to ~ave an impact. 8aied upon current nGlse
levels .. they should tear an t~e flDuses down on Stanford Avemole SCi that we
dODrt all go deaf i~stead of encroac~lng j~tD t~at noise barrier ~v~~
fart~er4 Again. I t~ink the propertJ values ~ill be_affected. ~y wiew
~11 be .ffeeted towards the East. At the same time~ the overall
<:o,1s.istency gf the rlelghbor:-hood -.ill be affected. n,e amount of land
aViilable fo~ gardening. etc .• and for lands~aping will ilso be affectEd
and will be inconsistent ..,ith the rest of the r.ei'gh~ortlDod . .our house is
set 22 feet baci from StaMford Avenue. but Df course. it was ~Yllt in thf
lSZO~# YOY ~aye people worrying about building ~ four-fence i~stead of a
three-foot fence. a~ this person is gofng to buil~ an entire house out
tnere ~il feel fro~ tne setback.
rft tooking it Qver one·t~irQ of the residents i~ t~e setback. if you look
at these ~ther ~ouses, they may be encroaching a few feet, but it is
rDug~11 less than 10 percent of the act~al residents. He is t~lking about
building i ~hole house il the setback. So] hope that can be taker. i~to
account. Agai •• f ~ope t~e parking issue at the end of (ciumbii and tha
01/19/9$
-13-
,--"
::..~.-;<
,-.J' -c •
TId rones t~ere .. ~iybe they Deed to ~ repaf~ted to re~l~d the exfstfng
owner that t~ey do, i. fact, eXi,t, and I hope thE, will te t.~." Into
aCCo~flt when fle b(JOds three driveways dir-ectl, acr()ss the street (rOO! my
house. and t~at the ~ew D~~ers will not be pu11lng 1ato ~y drive~al
everltfflle they 'have to tUN! around, like tne cars currently ire doing wfleo
t~eJ re.lize It is blocked off.
~. Grote: Th. ho",e that Is being proposed on t~is lot rloe. ~et the
on-site ~arting reqUirements. There ~ill b~ ~ne garage and one carport.
60th Colurnl>la and Star,forrl Avenue are wen below their triffle
capacities. One or two additiona1 single-family bomes will not generate
enough t~affic t~ ~ake an impl(t on elt~er street~
Member 9f Au~ieQcr; The reilit, ls that not roan] people ~ar\ 1. their
gar.g •• 11 of the time, and there is not enough on-,tr.et parking .t the
end cf Colijrobia for o~e additional b~use, mocb less t~o_ The current
owner parks ~~$ ~ir5 O~ the street every day. R~~ ire .~ going t~ have
two more bouses in t~!re doing the exact same t~;ng?
L frankf'Urt. 21Q9 (ol'Jmbh Streeh.._Pi10 ,I,lto: lie tliI:\lt il: fllee home i:t
t.~s addre~s on i )]0 I i2S-foot Jot and ~e are probably the oldest
residents on that lot, liaviog bHn Uiere abo'Jt 3> )'ears~ 'HIis 9€ntleman
over here 1S a developer. ~ct a res7de~t. r do ~ot see 'im pers~na11J as
a resident. Fcssibl1 so. Tnat is irrele~a~t_ If ~e i~ S~ concerned
about Dur ~roperties and how beautifwl t~ings are gaing to be, ~y do~s~'t
be just h."!:e and rode tWQ 7S-fDOt lots iT"id {Jut up tw(;. I;lce homes? Tn~
reason J (:ann"t see lIfm Shirlg In Ilr'S. ~Pherson"s !tome, t~e present home,
is t"at I taa\le heel:! ill tJ\at 110,1'Ie many tlmE::'S -.,,~eo she ... as liYing thtri-.
ne upstairs does not have all that IIUC.~ room. Some of U.e rooms ar-e law
and you ~ave to squat ~own_ So I do not see it as 1 verI livable hOmE for
an) Jarge (amil,. I suggest t~jt he go back to the dra~ing bOird iO~ put
up a coup'e tof 'itt homes. on 1~-foot lots~ !f be ca.!'! ::1ivi,de it and chi.!'I9'a
it aro~r~ onc~~ be <an do it ag&i&.
;111 JnlQ-r Stroupe. Santi (rtlz {;otJnh: J am Ue arc.lrlitect (or the
applicant. 1~'t;111J. ~e felt t"at we ~eeded to teep the proposed
re:slcenc:e away frorl the rear prop~rt1 lfne. So icstead cf .a six-foot
setbac\ 5. t~lt r€lr arE~$ ~e put. aine-foot s.etbac\ so th~t it lS three
feet cleser to the street than we ~ere required _ We felt it was necessary
because tfo.e e.ntn,ncE tG th-e exisUng t\ome 1$ from the Sta.nfor-d sid'o2'. I.lso
~e tried t~ stay away frorn t~e Ros~nberg home rext doo~ an Stanfo~d
A~~nue~ trying to pull bact so ther~ ~ou'd be some rear yard are~. (~the
design of t~e·home~ ~e lept it awa1 from existing residences, and t~at is
.my it 90t ~,der tkao the 6 feet that wer •• llo •• d_ ~e thQ"g~t it had tne
least impact CD any of the neighbors" ir.steaa ()f hav;og I; tlllo-story vol ume
r1ght up tQ the rear and side ~rcpertJ lioes~ It is primaril, 4 one-stQ~y
~~e It tfo.e ~ome~t. It ~as t one·story garage. It has a
~~e-~nd-~-~alf-stor) ~etbict are4 that is very $~milar to the existing
home t~at ~C~ see ther-! ~it~ the gabl!s. The two-story portion of the
home is only 11 feet wide_ The poro:1\ that people tla'".e been taTt.ing .about
is sf, feet ~ide. t~e portion that goes up to t~e street. sa ! just ho~e
th.at ..men peop1e. ha'oie emotional feelings about ho" close it is gett\ng~
an~ bow it Is .ncroac~ing !.to the setback, etc., they would take a look
at the ~Ti~lngs and see bo~ titt1~ a pcrtion of the borne is actually up to
t~e ,il feet of the propertl line. Also, frorn tne propert,lin. to the
curb is 13 feet. {hat lias. to <1'0 'W1t~ the e).tri: width. of Sh.r.fo.rd Allenue,
01/19j9S
-14·
-,
but It's not as some people b.ve •• 14 t~.!. that you could re.c' from
the s'dewalt .,d b. '.side the ~ous.. That Is not true at .11. S. it ba,
bee .... d. out t. be a little wor.e than It actually fs. If you could so
(I_t.l_t. there and see the COf'ners of the home, I dilFl't Uti!'lrt it is is bad IS
people tblnk It .ight be. not being able to fm.gln. the dra.ings. I have
drawings ~ere If anyone wants tt set thea.
/!!:. Mjgd.l: J hav, one lost letter h support of t~. project from Jim
Sagar.c •• P.l. Alt. resident. ~e llv'$ at SSO Chimal!s. rne ~ai. pol.t
of .,. letter's that he f •• l. it I. an extr.ordinary hardship to have the
2,·,oo! .etback. It Is ~Is op!.ion that it Is the best possible bouse
that coold b. bu)lt on thl, partle.la, l.t.
JeiD Hausman. ?llO Harker. Palo Alt5: Tbfs ~an is i developer. for 30
y.ars, I lived rlg~t next door. I t'!nk It is perfectlJ rid!,.lous t.
give somebody a 'iria~,e when tn~re rea111 is no reason for it. Re ~iS a
_ice bfg lot, and cocl~ certaia1, b~1'd two Ilce hooses. But JiM Sagorat
Is the list per, on II the world you oug~t t. )iste. to. He ~.s built T.,.
8ell houses III over Sirron PiilIri. ilnd now he fs building them all oo,'cr
Collage 12rratt. [lls~ vDuld love to ~now about those trees. Is ~e
goiog te lop the~ down?
~s. Grpti: There would be a reQuireme~t t~it he replace them at J 2:1
ntiD.
Member pf Audience: ! was not going to speaKt but t~e ir(~itect sW9ge~ted
we loo~-at these d~awings, These dra~;n9s say no. You ~an see t~at t~e
b~ilding goes i~to the 2S-foot setback.
Member iii! AUdii!;rKe: Did you say that the house 15 mostly a on.e-story
~OU~? Tne ~ho1e drawiDg appears tQ be two stc~ies.
Jill Tulor StrDupe: The sect;<Jn 15 cut through the tlrio·story portioe.
IJs. y.!'9te: I lI'oilld 1 i:te. til isk those IIf you bere today a question. Is
there any red~ced setback that wou14be acceptabie to the neighbors? j a~
lootiog ror il cORIprOl'llise :f!ere that 'Would be YitlllB reasoo_
Robh (1ari~ Cculd'] uk a llro-ce6'ura.l question,? Is Uh !',egothtion I:
part of the variance process?
.M,L Grote: If we can C.O::'ie up wi.t~ iI'I'I iKceptilbie S.ohltlcn fer the
applicant and tne people w~o are cYrrentl, ohjecting, the~ yes~ that
.negothtfon -can be part (If tlilis p-:"ocess.
Rohjp (l.rt: E~t tnere ~a} be other people ~~o ire not ~ere today ~~
vou!~ object t. t~at. \by s~ould we Degoti.te 00 the,r behalf?
~s. Grote; You do not ha~e to. I ~s asking those ia the audience todaJ
if there is sorr~ amount that yo~ feel ;s zr. acceptable enc;oachment. £f
not, tfleA that is yotJr answer r
Member of Audi?nce: [f you want 11'5 to, we Ci~ do i ,survey of upper
(allege Terrace~ Ye ~ou1d be happy to go bouse to house, and is( if e~erl
person 11 t~e ~eighbo~hood is ~lling ta agree ta the 25-fQot setback. Dr
jf not. tnen exactlJ wbat t~e;r compromise would be.
11/11/95
·IS·
, / '.
','., '
eembor of Audience, But that Is not ho~ t~es. decisions s~ould b ••• d •.
Thor. Is ., overriding public good that ~ •• established. Thit is why that
setback was mad~. Unle>! there 11 , com~el1ing r~~son to y;olate that
w~ic~ has beeD d~rnonstrited, there II nQ reason for it.
RoM. (!irk: rf you are listing tP,e peop1e today, 11)' answer 'is no .•
Annette BialsoD: ~nat preced~~t are yo~ setting if you grant th~
applicant t~;s relief fro~ the lS·foot .etbact? ~.t i. to t2ep everyone
e1se along St~nford Avenue from comIng l~ and Is&1r.g fo~ the same thin~?
~s. Srgte: EiC~ varf.nce application ;s tons1dered on its own merit5~
One apprQltal or de"l .. l does ~ot set preced'enL !'one of He three nrfance
findings address precedent.
eembtT pf Audience: He ~iS bro~9ht ift pe~p1e ~o do not 1,~e i~ this
neighborhood i. support of the proJect.
~se Grote: Agii~J [ ~uld lite to remind peopie to re~iim crderl~ and
address yO~T comments te ~e_ ~. ~ig~al, ~ould yo~ (ace to respond to
YDur neighbor;s (omments?
8r. ~igdal: I ~u11 like t~ make so~~ ff~a1 (omments. There is no
artificially .cc-e.aled har-lisA'$! 1n this. It has thh unique setback
reqlliremenL Sa the !~t snoul" be "~\lie\liecf -fa Hat Jight. 'ou have been
talting about an, eyesore •. _, He eyesore ... 111 be an ugly house~ 11 101"lg.
~arrow house~ I doc't se~ ~ow t~e shorter bouse whic~ ~s fartner from the
nefgl1bo-rs 'Wil t be la'ors!!: t),an tne long. flarrow'f1ouse. i absolutel, do not
~U1 this argumeDt. I thi~l r,aybe it is being ~sed to reliEv~ your
9~ievances that ~e are building houses next to you, so yo~ br;Dg in
arguments wllic::11 ha'le no (redibilit]. Who 'Would argUE that .a 'Snorter.,
wider house is Aot better than a rin rca" car hou$e.
Ms. liit}On: I t~lnK you are getting ver~ rep~titiye. ~~at the ~o~lng
aamiafstrator Deeas t& looi at is tkat the spec;;l setbatk was req~)rfd
for ~ultf;le reasons, 1Dcludlng ~at t~e streetscape looks like. If you
put that house there, the streetscape is <~anged dramatici'lJ. T~at 1S
somethir'lg tflat I do!]'t Ulick has ~ver been {.onsldered' hers. We have
talked about its ~assiyeness~ I r.onster ~ouse. etc., but ,au ~ave to
consi~e; ~at the streetscape loo~s like. When yo~ keep threite~ing to
put up a r.ilroad tar type house t 1et the mar\et fcrces decide. if that
;s what lt ;5, then re! it be.
~mber of Audfence: I tn;nk it is gery i~terest1~g that be wants tc push
thit fr~Dt house S~t~ the 2S-foot ~etbatk liQ'tltion~ ~owevert w~en it
CDme~ to the bouse t~at he is going to be )fring il. he is .11owlng
\imself aine feet as opposed te the traditiona1 ~1l f~et~ So when it
comes ta ~ere he proposes tc )ive t he does ~ant to ~ave more space~
~o~~eT. ~heG it tames t~ b~~lding it for someone e'se~ he does net taKe
that t~to ton5fd~ratfon. There is a doub1e standard ~erew
Mr. ~;gdal= If I give space to myself. I a~ ~lving space to tne
""'90DOrl"9 oouse, whic~ we ~ill bot. e.joy. It ,5 foc tr.e e.joyreent of
both of .5.
~. Colonna: J t~ink ~e get the poimt ~f that. ~~ic~ has bee~ ~aae
01/19/95
·16·
se.eral tl .....
lis .. Crate; If there are no more cootuenl!, ( will c10se the pubHc
~e.rl"g. Tbant 10. ,II for coming. I do need t. conclude by reading t~e
..... , of .. 11 tho •• tn,t "rote letter. II opposition to "nd i. hvor of
thl. application. I will not ro.~ t~ •• ntire letters, s!nc! t~.r. are '0
_tRY. _letters II opposition bavt beet. rtctlved frQ~ J~~nnte Buct1ey Bla~\
and Yom Blanl~ Sus~p Rasenbe~gs 1.2~ Stanford A~enue~ Constance Crawford.
20SO O.rtDOUt~ Stre.t, Ojano E. flnkel.tel., Solon flnk.lsteil, 2041
Di~uth Street. Ulla ~fc~. (alia Mfct~ 2130 Ranover Street, Mart~a
Platt. 2255 Bowdoi. Street, (.tk1 •• , foote O.rb.~, W,lliam H. Ourh~~, 2019
OarlDout_ Street, Carl ~P.dden, Maure.n ~P.dd.n, ~.d;.on McP,ddor., lSOI
Stanford Avenue, Brra~ O. Caril1i l 21&0 (~'ijmb~at John and ~rjtza
frankfurt, 1460 College Avenue, Willian D~ Ro~s~ .25 Sherman Aven~!. and
~obl. Clar\, Z02S C.luot;. Stre.t.
I. support of the proSect:
J-ImeS Silgorac, 550 Cltimal is Orhe. l. ICit:gano'yfch " Jim S~ Hahn. J2'56
(el1ege Aven~~" ~11, Coyne. "~~ .• Peter lilk's. 2140 Sowdol. Street, Tom
Quckwitta leoc Ti~lQr. 2435 21st Str~~t~ San franc;sco, Donna Coler. 2034
Columbil 5treet and ~ic~ael Tubbs~ 384 Curtner Avenue~ That conclud~s t~e
publfc bear'jng~
-.-.
01/19/9,
-11·
ATTACHMENT 6
Letters in Opposition
Susan Rosenbere
January n. 1995
Ms. Usa Grote
ZC>n!ng Administrator
Gty of Palo Alto
250 HaIlliltoo Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
Dear Ms. Grote,
1425 Stanford Avenue
Polo Alto, CA 94306
116 Maple Street
Conway, "'.A(l1341
REeF'-
Mark Hlgdal, my neighbor at 1475 Stanford Avenue, has
appUed for a variance to reduce the building setback along Stanford
Avenue. "~n I spoke with you several weeks ago. I expressed my
concern with his plans to develop the property next to my home.
After looking at a set 0{ plans he sent (I am currently a student in
Conway. Mass.) I am extremely concerrw:i with this proposed change
and the impact it wouJd have on my property and the neighborhood,
as well
He wants the variance be\:au5e. without it, he claims. he will be
forced to build an "ugly rallroad car" of a hOUSE. something unde.
nineteen feet wide. Mr. Migdal cites "23 noo-complylng propoerties
(sic)" as justification for the variance. I suspect tb<lse properties
were built long before current zoning laws were in enacted. Mr.
Migdal plans to build in 1995, there's 00 reas.on be shouldn't be
required to de~ property according to the current taws. It's my
impression that Mr. ~1igdal is IlQt a homeowner who plans 00
improving his property to remain in the neighborhood.
He claims, in his letter to you dated 11114/94. that a 125'
hedge wClllkl provide a sound and viSual barrier between the
sidewalk an<:! proposed bouse. That hedge may ~ in place now but I
don't think it will be there for long. It is old and in very sad shape,
and in the years Hr. Migdal has owned the property he has prov'Aed
.-'. --...
----__ :..x: .. --'.'
'''ery li~ care for the hedge O!' any of the trees or bushes. A
Dumber are now dead or dying. During the dty-wide 'spruce-up'
before the Wocld Cup Soccer Games he was me ooe property owner
OIl the block dted for an unkempt yard.
A group of redwood and cedar trees is In his twenty-five foot
setback th3.~ al:>uts my property. In the event Mr. Migdal begins
construction, it would be Important that the trees separating our
propert".l' remain healthy and that they aren't damaged by
construCtion veh!des delving avec the root systems. In addition,
there are several tall pine trees along rJs property that are old,
s1.lsceptible to disease. and leaning over neighbors' property.
Attention should be paid to those trees as well.
I recognize that Mr. Migdal has a right to build, but bear in
mind, my property will be irripacted by what he does nell:! door. I
am opposed to the Qty granting his request for a variance.
Sincerely,
~}ljrd£t~v.el
Susan Rosenberg
cc:Annette Bialson, Esq.
-~ .
-."".~'"
Ja/,uaty 17. 1m
100 noonna.
P!."ni", 0epwIII>cxI
25C Hami1k..)!1 Av.em.'C
,....lo AI." 0Illf00li.
'",.~~ .
thml 72 bLltiri 19t1. "1\-'1:" (twnW the!rw;e a1 1501 Swnf(.'lI\J Allcnue, {aL"R.~'S Utl'Jmhia
St.red Cr.-.-n flc' prt?="l!}' in q~!lon) .,:here ,...... )1.1 ye~ \II:~ :l;;~kJr.d. cnjoyir.! l.he unique qvrUitieso
ilk!< m:odc (';>11.~. Torr"", '1>(0' ,,"cd:.!. [ri,odIJ. "(",,,llJ" Iki)il'to<.>rbc<'Il. We"", <Oll..-.meJ for
Our (rierxJs In Coik!.e TerrllC.:e. y;,h(l will bcM tlle hrun:I c:I l'lkvclC"lfleJ"4S di.'itnle~r.d. cyuk.:d
illlImiintl. We ~ ~ lhis:k.111~.r bt:: (()rTrlltf!y Jt<!dmd tnduLkd . .alhebct'Ji.ng.
"11". Migilal dc.-x;s "OT fi.1'>'c [f1C: he-: in"';fC"Sl..<i of the nelg!loomocrl allli:a!L p~ dl(l:te Dl..l(
'k.' t'Ic I .PM o{ (he neTgl1b::-mo.:d. Som~lim~.;; llc appa.rall1y sl.:t)'eLJ.:If 111C:~. tlu1 aI: tjr"l time:
(.1urinf h£s: purpn~d ~~ncr ll11l he' acnlalIy UVE ." 1475 Stankcl:
• lk did out per1!_mn C' .... ('"8 11~ ml~ h.;r.'ic. iX"rfunot")()' Jl:)IDIIk':O:J1ll't": (In rI-.c F-:n!, :illi~itlg 11M!
~rj'lllJld.:; lfl ~Cllf:l(' d'mgcR"""'J..;Jl' djJ ~Ibiell Toc fu\\ll dial $tlru~ dicJ. Elf'Cll ill St:u ,,11..'4'
.('~rm..."l1 !:Hn..', tr('.(',s dizll, Tn.-l1c:t1ge {'l\i.errJll tI~ s1de'U<<1rt., -:-."l.:tggLi,g my chi!dr .. ~LJ·$. do(l"s
;mJ :>cr.ltcrung: ih&::"w w ihc ""J}~) ,"i.;b.-d. on:)' \IoTh."1i.. :t.'t,,"T nulnen ~L.L' dtiz.;"f] C()QlllLaitA .... {he
t,:lly ft.ft him a V;.anUJ1£. wd he hire.;ll y:m.l·1..-.u'e ~""o.(,·r Il) J.'ICrklCl'l .1. ~;r;:k ,leJll-tlp.
• He m~ net .lI1eJ:ll,pl. l.l ml'C1 hh r..ci!;:hhl,~"'S..
.. ~",·~'Vrs oftc:o a('('t;.l1lul:..t,feJ ('0 ItIC' front: .. ~
• 'ihc lbJtJ& "';r,; tY.U:R das\'" K'4'" d:Jp \ liJ cuct ",f(1; 00 c'\.idcnce of cnrull1,t' Of" ~L'Ii.n~
A-.; [:If;r:; ,·c .... ··--)Old :)t': ... ~. ru.rb. h,.~ Jive.I dlt~_
!.fr. Pwfigdo:J{'s pli1i:li -.ill c:.:rtainIy .aPI irupl'I'.""1: CoTh::i;o! TemK."t:. Ralhcr, ~ riJii..'Ul • .Il.'S 6-
:t~ II-f{"I!.;( :sc{~'iS. will t.1'1!Wd m.~ ,~"'.u-.n:c ('If a hi,ghly I;i:sl'hle O:{ll.cr. ~ .. J~;,f.:" tr3fiic Md
pJ.r%jr~ prdiC'.w..ll.. aodu;1ernj rhc hct..1: out ol'll'Ii:'~:; wb0Il\.';!: ~am'y. 0urCll:r1 hocSt",:H l,5jj!
Stlll~.cl. moclt: ~ we: If""!:\! ll. alrt:a(!y ruM;.. .... u("l il.1I.l dc.l~ Iu Cnluruhi.:&. (1r',tllt'nc: otnndlLI'
nnolllL,):, 1,'111 lh:.i' tJe;.td<nd str.'t."1 \to.; 0 l.~il~ :t ·it.."l.Jal hf(lr~-nel.. iT • .vJ tI~ S:rCd r. ;,;Trr ally).:,,)
I'W'I\IW 1'" Ur nwnber uftl-rum;. iI ~"eIl!::i11).
Cdumbiais oear.a ~.i: .; Str('L"t fhD of chillin: ~ d(-..--m"l ceet~ L11e I!:\"tr. tr.tftic. {For Ih<i:
Dlaner .. SlinttmJ AV£nLe ~,~ ..... eit'tu."'1'!)
f eJipecltflar ttis i~ olrJy I11c first (\fM lilaa .... .K.r Ifris pn.1J)CitY, Hnw many nlWJSCS lJi'\.'i ~
plan to squce.t:~ IXI k' fflis palcd.? b he w.ininS "" cti3<.'i.'~ .:ill ttlC' plilllS 2fld' Otn elm.: van iI!l\:es b .. -
int~ls f01el~ Wouldyoo please N. him f,.) cJjSG~hisD\Jl.!:1kle;t<;s(}tf131 ~~ ~ C"M ..
unde~d.r.is IICQ.U~ lulfie Fun c{)n~xt.
~ cImo.-e !he inT~S <'fE,ik 'R:~,"~n!s twcr Iho.~ of a &velc:p:.r, D2n) \hi ....
applit.'iult.lll ~.i(' \lan;t.'1('.e. ¥-or the pctl('1k .flll Jive ill die n,n~g,:' TCIr3(( ~i.!lhb..JlTh,l(,llf. :md v..'b. t
are iIt'-:)1J( it.;; furLi~.
Slnren;I,.
kannk Ducli:1cy lit-aut.
~fJL--I
k)M . .
Ms. Lis. Grote, Zoning Admi:'lisua.tor
Planning Depart men!
Civic Center
2~(l Hlmiltoo Ave.
Palo Alto. a 9HOI
Dear Ms, GtOie.
, .
January 16. 199}
I am vrjt;ng 10 urae the refusa.l or the AI'PliC3tioo for Varian<:e by Mr.
M ... k Migdal for his property at 1175 Suntord Avenue 19-{·Y-l!1 lor ~'hich
the P"oIbllc Hearing is sche<lule<l on January 19, 1995. My basicctljectioo is
that Ihe lIoooe Mr. Migdal proposes to build. crimped up more Iban 50\
closer to t!i.e side ... a1k than the tules zlJo .... "ill be an eyesore and vill be em
or character vlth the re~t or Ihe Upper College Ter,..c. neighbohOO<l SiD<:~
197() Illave owne" anil tved a! l050 [hll'lmoulb Street, my prOj)erty thO~
sharing a COf'ner marter vith 1175 Stanford Ave. I val've Iilore than! ~an
say lhe illlormal ma or 00< neighborhOOd, old an<! ne ... house~. smat! and
large. There is a spacious, yet modest .. peet to tbe are. that completely
avoids tbe sterility. uJjlineH and discomfort or ar •• , ~.-ber. b\lilding~ are
crowde" loge!her for muimum commercial yield.
Toouat. the present request fer Variance deals ,..jlb one >il)~ family
IIoose, mate 00 miSlatg: )'Ir. Migden is in rK1 making a minor sulxfivislon .
eventoally to inclu<le Ihree crowa-ed, Ivkvardly-placed singl<! family
(!,'e!lins units vbich viti impinge unpleasantly and ulll airly on neighboring
properties, be visibly ugly from both Columbia Street and Star.ford .... venue
and, in the case or tile IIoose closest to Stanford .',-enu •. be unpleasant to
live in. crovding closer than allo ... ed into the considerable tr<lffic noise or
Stanford Avenue.
Though Mt Migden IssUt'ed neighbors !lathe or his family intende<1
to live in the o.-iginallOuse, immediatelY open I'urcha,ing the property be
realigned the I« by gettin8 a (ertil'icate III Compliance, as you know. {l
believe tbat proces> ,hould bave been subject to puhlic bearing at that time;
I un<lerstand that it is new. F2it IcwllJpll) Mr. Mjgden is no ... claiming that
present setbad rules con~t!tute a "hardShip· for him: thi. mites M sense
since he himself vent to the elaborate tfouble to realign the three an"' .... b!e
lots intO the long narrov format tllat is aivins him--and us--so much trouble.
Mr _ Migdea is ,developer ~ant,nit to squeeze mnimocn V.ofil out or this
property vitlloot regard to the character or our neighborhood,
. ..---
A minor I>Cl telling mlller is that in I!.is appliC3tiOO Mr. Migdfn cites
tile -tJtict bushes an" mature trees· aIoni Stlllt'ord Avenue as III argument
ift favoc <l the variance; \.!lis man cares nothing for hi. bushes atld trees. All
0( us bave ootiCed the $eVere decline ic the Lrees, !hu~ry,l.nds<"pin8,
. Ind the ()(igin&l house itself since he toci: it over.
Plsase decline Mr. Migdea's requp.st for I Variance.
Coo!tance Crawford
2050 Dartmouth St
Palo Alto, CA 94306
I .1 •
]IIl>UAI)' U. 1995
Lisa Groi=
City of Palo Alto
Zoning Administra.O£
Please let this letter serve as our objection 'So t!-IC va.riance requested by the O\WIlC'f of the
proper!)' loca1ed allhe nor1heast comer of Columbia St alld S'anford Avecue.
It is our opinioo that !be setbocks preser .... 1he overaJI cunsisteocy of the size or Ill.
yards in the neighborhood. ThIs also ensures that !leighbori:ng property ,'alues remain
stable, The variaacc if a110wed would demo)' our V...e"IoIi 10 the east and thus affect the
value of Oi!< proper!)'. Our property is ~ bad, app.-mumatc:!y Z!Jeet from Stanford
Avenue and it was built in the J9lO's. A bufldinE set tack in the • ."nount frJsliad'ance is
BSking for is absurd.
It is also our opicion that the O'\WDer is no( encountering any hardship as be stated to us
that he had planne<110 build three houses 0' tl-" property before he eve. purchased it It
has been his intention an along ID bwld wee houses and he bas therefore created his oVro'D
hardshir·
The: QU{[l.er a1so stated 1O us OD January IS .. 1995 that if'V\:e did nO( support hls variance
that he ...... ould build a less t!'-..an appearing stnK'ture and' that v.'e 'A'Duld be iorctd to Iooi: at
that instead. it is our opinion tlial because this devl!':loper has state1 that be intenc1s 10
build Ihree properties 0' this lond that he should llav< 10 go tlrroogh • An:hireclurol
Review Process. Especiafly after S'.atin~ tl-.at he ",ill build an ugJy bouse if the variaoc<
does DOl get .p~roved.
Additionat concerns have to do Vw'ith increased omse, increased traffic:. and the lack of
0t1 street parkir-.g on Co~u:mbia St and Stanford A venue. Tbere 3."'f Red Zones on
Columbia St. at the end in front: of this proposed site. hy additional residences l1!.ill
increase the need for D:lOR: on st,."eet parking v.ithout it being avii!llab1e. New residents or
guests "'\loin be:forced 10 pari 00 Stinford A'Vco',re Across from the Escondido Elemental)
Schoo!. This is just oat safe or ""c<rt.>ble \0 anyN>dy except the p<l>Oo applying fo< this
""'-lance. Inoeased traffic and parong will have a big impact en ('" safe,:; of any
chlldren crossing the s!ret1 in this already ccngested area.
Because of all Illes" issues, we feel lIlat it is in tOe best interest of the City of Palo Alto
not 10 ~I the variancC'.
w. also feel tI-.at this developer should llave \0 apply for the variance'" include the entire
. subdivisivn at the same time since lP..at bas been his intentioc s1nce he rvJrcr.ased the
properr).
Sincerely. Iw.;idents of IS01 Stanford Avenue
Palo Alto California
Carl E. McPadden. Maureen A McPadden, Madison A McPadden
~;'t( %",,-Ilfnett
'-A .~
Lisa Grote, ZOning Administrator
Cit} of Palo Alto
250 Hamilt". AvenDe
Palo Alto, Ca. 9430 1
Ite: Varian<:. Applicati<>. Cor 1475 Stanford Ave.
Dear Ms. Grote,
I. revie~i"g tbe cIocuments pertaining I<> the 'l'plicatiOll of Mr.
Marl< Migdal for • Vorl.IKe foc his property at 1475 Stanford Ave.,
several issues come to mind. First -and foremost 15 the fact that )'It.
Migdal himsdf created the three new iQts no~' fronting onto
CoJambia Street from tbe' former underlying lot specir>eaooos ... Ilkb
eonslsted of 511 s.mallei lots fronting onto stanford Avenue. It is our
understanding that J: llanance is and should b.e reserved for those
cases of development wbere the shape or !be size of the propert}
creates an \lJ1due hardship on the owneT. It is, 1\ldl.crous \0 sugges.t
that these regg!aticns were designed and v.'rWea simply k> be to-ssed
aside any time someone wants to build a!lytltirlg they desire. It is
whit (his tboo.gbt i1l m~gd that we (:antiot help but vehemently -oe.le_ct
to Mr. Mj,dafs request foe a Variance." He created tl:!e~ Jots and was
granted a Certif>eate of Compliance onl) withi. tile past mootlo and
DOW 5uggests t11at it is a hardsbip for hIm to ,,'ork ..,ilhia the
boundaries of wbat be Jr:imself created. This seem'S to liS 10 be quite
an arroganl position SO take regarding .city legwlations. Tbe .f~ct ~al
be says i. bis letter 10 you (Received 11-14-94) that be "'ould ""ve
a specific hardship in -designing a ~ecent bouse-ill suck I. narrow
long strip of land" make. us think that be sboold bave perkaps
chosen 10 create his .DeW Jots in a more suttabTe ..,'a), for his idea of
an appropriate development for our neigbborbood. The fact th • .1 Mr.
Migdal 1IIenl alIead and "eated t.~ese lots and in fact wrote a letler
fO you requesting this VariaDce eveo before he was granted the
Certii'icale of Complia""e foe Ibe reconfiguration "r tbe lots sugge,ts
'to us that be feels quite confideDt in his abUity 10 Dot na\'e to live
within the current regulations and alse im his ability to get this
V ... -iarn:. granted. We wODld like to sire .. bow different Ibis ease is
from otber situations ",ben people are granted variances "ben tbey
Jlave moved into homes witIJ pre-existiDg underlying ~ and size
c.onstraints.. Thb is I. completely different ~tuation thaa the one we
corrently ~ave ",itlo Mf. Migdal'. property wbere be himself created
the very constraints that he claims are J. hardsMp to bim.
. ·-.. J
Another point 1Jfe wou:d like to .C:dl'~ss is in roe-spor::! se to a
iet!er from Mr. La. A. CcrIes c( the City of Palo Allo Pilblii: Works
Department 10 Mr. Migdal on lune 11, 1993 regarding tile Certif",.te
of CompUance. I. this Jeuer, it .. 'as recommen&<l that Ille Certificate
be granted approvi! subjeci 10 variou, conditions. Tbe OOC conditio.
Ihal i. c( interest 10 us is 16 in Mr. Cone," letter which Slates, 'ARB
review is required for tb~ new homes to be .constrUcted unless tJtey
are 'singl, develope<!' a~ set fcrtA nnd.r PAMe Section 16.48.05O(i}.'
Sin<:e Mr. Migdal intends, IS be S~"'. hl bi. letter of December 1,
1992 to Mr. Joseph Colon .. of t.he Planoing Depanl!leot, that he doe.
pIa. 10 develop the eotire property no ... knew. a. lC7S Stanfc",!
Ave. Ioto three separate 'homes" but is submllting Lie plans singly, it
seems 10 ns tbat there sboold be an ARB review of the cntfre
development Mr. Migdal has planned roc lfial corner and ,.hat tbe
... bo!e . complex "'<>old look hle after My. Migdar. development i.
completed. At least then, tbo-se of us wbo live al1d maJce our homes
in thIs Mighborbood could feel cocrtde:nt that someone tlad indeed
J.ooted at "the .. ·hole pkturc'" 'here. Des.pite .."bat Mr. Migdal wolJ1d
bave 1115 beTieve .. this is in f.act iil very bus.y comer witli mucb foot
tramc 00 Celumbi. Street and mud. automobile and bkyck traffic on
Stanford Avenue and desen,'es an the attention that tbe Cit)'
Planning Departmeot call live _ to iL
Fiolny, we have :some general cODcerms over Mr. Migdal'!
.compliance witk the general bult.; and safery of tJ\e ncighbor-hood
and ... ita lis geDer~ cfisregard for bask neatness and" compliance
witII City regulations ift the upkeep c( hi, yard. Durin~ the spOng cl
199:'. we and several other people including the mail person ill oW'"
Ileigbborhood phoned tile Cit, nDmerous times 10 complain about 'bc
state c( Mr. Migdal's yard. In fact, Mr. RK:h Cabrera <>i Inspection
Servkes for the City c( Palo Alto Building Department officially
notified M •. Migdal at least 'wk. during !lie past spring L~al he
.... ould have 1<> clean up his prOj>Crty. The sidew.lk "'IS 50
overgrows with his. shrubbery that it became ~omplet-el, impossibr,e
to "walk. b, kis bouse wi!houl Ilaving \0 6elOur into the street We
received several foUow-vp pbooe calls from Mr. Cabrera stating that
Mi. Migdal had bee. told I<> cleaD up his propert,. and eveoruany,
Mr. Migdal di" clean 1lP •• oogh t" make the 'ide ... ·.lk passah Ie
althougll he lI.s ceriainly <looe no more than that i. !he way c(
teeping his yard up. fa bIs request f<x Variance. Mr. Migdal state;s
Otat -the immediate: neighborhood will be cegativeiy effected by
ugly ·rallrcad car-sbape of $i.!{:lI bouse· if he is :JOt I:ranted .i
Variance. I. light of the .. 'ay Mr. Migdal bas chose. 10 let hi. 0 .....
hoose and surrounding property deteriOrate, we ,,'oold lite fO
" .'
... , __ . ",.r
; ,-... ~.
·$.ggest that be is not so mue" .o""erned (or the effect of ~ 'ugl,'
bouse OIl Ibe immelfiate Dcighl>orbood SO mu<:b .s he is "';tI!. the .ite
of the I'I""fit. be migh! real' from ~i",ldlnl! a larger wme than is
ew-renuy allowed 00 Ill,. piece <>f properly.
IJ. closing. ..e .. ""Ie! li1:. 10 fe.petlt.n, request that yoo den)
this '"'Iuest for Variaou at U1S Sta1lford Ave. lmi u.at the
possibiXil} of ." ..... RB ,evi"" for tbe •• tire development be
cansi<!e"rec!. Thank you vcry m""~.
,>f9.:~1s;:;!J ., /I1J~jh~h-~f.rt
oba and Naotu Frankfurt
1460 C<>ll<:ge' A .enuc
Pal<> Alta. Ca. 94306
""""1' 11. I'lliS
LuGnl<>
Zoomc AOminlsnt",
Cit) DiPi&kl A1t.o
250 HamUItcMI A~
PI!e A ..... CA 94301
After K'IIinrir., Ibe appfiutiaa I!Id drawir.gs of Mart :p..r-tgdal' for the: propcty ill 1475 Stanford A venue r am nppcsed 10
~ and "'~ Uli Mr. Migdal. The v ... -ia.ncc proa.oture .is dearly .sct-vp for p«Ipert} own.ers ~ ... hrtku.tz
~ J.Ul1"OWld'tfttS,. shape or ~:ic3J cor.uf"rtion of e-,e propen) ... ·_ creates a "hardship" to !he owner· lE .... ea if! Mr.
M'JlWIIetrcr k: you cLd.cd November 1.(, 1994 bt u:;cs Ihe k!m "h.ards.'lip" in descn"bing '!lis prope1!)l_ Mr. MirdaJ had Ihe
praptrt)' line m:oMig'.lred 10 ir: current layout "'itt! f>..Lfl 'know1:.JgC' Df building rt::;.trlctiOfl. ThiS ret:or.tigu~ of k:t 'fines
.115 'is prde:rt:nu as "be ~ in • lI:ttc1 to Josep1l 'Co"icn."'.Ie. Thett wert mz.ny tl1.1'.er Qpti()~ yet lie-otbo~ lhis uG' is flOW
claImm, bnlihip. 'is ("Telll'" ill his Ncvember-l4. 1994 letter 10)'00 he II: '3« ir.~dI.':Ig ac jjvc m 1M litW bt.l..r:se bec.wsc-he
~fers 1:0 tile "bentrIlS--for 1hr: "'future Fesidenu". He: also (:coctude.s l2'lis benefit tfl15 un-LtC/we "rutLll1: rtkiden!" and
"surroun.:fllll!: eoromunit'j"_ The: only tonclw;ion to dra'.i fi:!:re is dw iI: Dt'J}, bent:fits Mr. Mjgda15 !lar.l: accouru-.-td is DOt
w'ha:: I!n!: vac=;.ancc proced'urt" was sef:-tJp to do. Tnc ~UrTent cOfldilioo of tk plVpctt} c:kil'"tJ .shO-.'5 his '0c1. of concern for lfIe
ac-icbbo.rf:ood.
i.1nd::r d'Je '"'ecrurlCSll: of Comp[ianu" i. ~irt: V.r. Migdar to modify !he turmu swcture or to demorESt .... 'hidl require a
sepank ~1L "I'"tri two propmies wi.kr C~slr'uC1iOll this sbou14 quarrl)r as I SlJb-.frvisiOll nQl: a -SiI1~k proper!:)''' being
dieveIoped as ses: li;)rIIIunder FAMe ~ction 16.41.Q5O(:2).. ct.us,. ~iring ARB rc .. ·j,eIli'. All)' su~ pTans ~pt'O'VZl'
slwuld uve-& same req-.. ltrenteM.
H'IS ctJims 1fuII: 1beK art -qufi.e • ,=,~i ~ aion& Star.ford A "'enue llave set bad: less :fwI 2S i"_ Th.:-&mil -quite I re-. ... is
~,b .. iI&ous: a number. The-Dumber '"'23 noa-complymJ properties'" is O'.lI of'contexL f'di cert.\iu there m-2.3 in. !he
c~· clPaJj::l_1Jto bur not a1008 Stanford AlIct1UC':in Cofiege TerJ'9Ce.. Rt 'iMw~ only C ill !he CoDegc Terrace. NOM ofthe$e
'houies tisIc4 art ortbe me or proximity 1fo..aa: lw: is suggest\nl-
Mr. Migdal' is \l5ing;fle nriarn;.c proceJur'c set-up ta a.)d ~ 'horoeowOC' iP If;c: c:nj!lyl'n'!m of rbtic ~cpcrty to l'I"'.M.e mone}'.
rfu lcnc::rs ~ .,..-isJeading and ins~ lk is coming into OtiC IOC'fgnOOmooo ancr csing its good !1aJrtC' fur profit. As I roo,
1et"m rU1lkd. aDd lome owner I stroI';ily CIlCowage you 1D deny his appI)catioo for a varianu-2:1Id Kquue 'him ~ me p1ans
wltti 'fie ARB '!lefOR ptoc-=mg 011 anJ fi.JrIJ'Je lievelopmem oflh!5 property.
ThanI: yoti far )'011 time..
Brian D. C>r.u;
2l.SO CI)}umbi2
Palo AJttt~ CA 94306
·' .... .
'Diane 6' Sofon 1'inf.!fstein
Usa 0r0Ie, Zoniog Administralllr
i".annll:& DeparIroent
Cit} 0{ Paio Al' ...
2SO Hamilron A.venue
_9 OtrtmO<Jth Sue ..
Po'" A~ •• C... 84300
JamlaJ')l i 8. 1995
Palo AIIo. CA 94301 ~
~ &qump VIlrianct -147$ Sllll'/arrl Aw:nU4 A.l'N JJ7-.641
.-,-.., . "
Wt are ~ to It •• requ~te<I • ..n..,'IOe. Our concern. are "..any. The Jo( Jines 00
!his l""I"'rty ~Jete naTlgMd with DO notice 10 the ~ffe<:<e<l neighbor!. W. were expc<:<ing
such •. !lOIice and were o"'maycd 10 cfisc<>vcr thaI 5OmeI1ow thi. rWi&nmenl !I2s lleen
occompli5hcd. and lI-js relaled var'",,"Ct is being l'e<!ue.s,e<!.
A Qlrsc;ry review o! Ille pubfic Iile clearly demonstnl.t.e.s Wt from the time !hls
proper1J wa.s purc1lase<! til. buyer inttr.aed 10 sul><!ivide and <leve1op the propertJ, k is O\lr
belief thallhiJ is in fact • minor suM"msion and sl10<11d go llu'oIJgh Ihal process. including
AlUI approval.
As 10 Ihcvaria._ "'Quest \!5clf. it is our ondcmsn<!"U\& that variance. are allowed for
hardohip. Any han!shlp for !hls development is one whkh 0-.. devcloperICwner has imposed
on himsclf. By !his 101 realignment, be has crealed 'he need lOr • ~ •• Jt is cur
undcrstanc!ing tIlat ira ~.ardshil' i, of cne's 0"",,, making. Illi' ~ould no! Sllpport the issU3llCC
c<avarian<e.
The varianc:c nq,uesIed is for IT. exlJ'aOrdinar-j waiver of fhel'e<!uired oc!back along
Stanfurd AvtmIC and is ~I.. It is our belief !hal tile eu',-,ple of e>istin, !lOn'
compf13l\\ pr:>pe>t) which !he d.~loj>orlowntI dltS in his application appear '" be properties
'IIlU<:1l are in !he lower part 0{ the Terrace. and ... hieh may in fact be ~ed 11.·2. no( 11.·1.
Becao,," of !he pressures of work, neither my bu,band 110< I are ,,,ailable !O ll/elld Che
hearing; Isowever, we sendlng tIl;s letter with O<Jr neigbb.>r and trust that it "ilI be giv .. full
ronsic!eralion.
Very truly yours,
DiANE E. FrNKELSTElN
SOLON FlNKEL&11:JN
CoUll at UJI.I HIde.
t 130 KtDCIVer St. Palo Aleo, CA 94306
(415) 856·3666
January 18. 1995
lisa Grot.e
Zooing Mmlnistral«
City 0( Palo Nc.
250 Hamillon
PaIoMo.CA
Oear Ms. Grefe:
We oppose granfing 1M yanance requested lor \he PfC>Perty at H75 StarJord
Avenue (lot 94-V-l8).
1. I is our undersian<fong tha! !his requesllor variance JolIov. .. an adm i nis\raftve
redrawing of !he lot fmes lor !he property at Ille comer of Stanford and
DaI1mOUlh which .... s done at !he request oIlhe appfocan:. II this is f1E ease.
!hen !he. applican! seems 10 be reques6ng rer",f from his own ac6on •. We
feellllis is una<:eeptable.
2. The PfO\)O$ed seftlack from Stanford Avenue is far out of character lor OIJ<
neig!lbo<hood. We !mow of oritj one single !amily dwenings in College
Terrace !hal has a se!b2ck of less lhan 20 feel from a major .tree!; !ha!
hoUse predates 1M City of Palo No.
3. The proposed setback would put !he proposed c!wening unacceptably close 10
Stanford Ayenue. This would Ioca!e one wan of Ihe dwelling less lhan ~5 feel
from a blJsy feeder s~l This wooId provide an unaooeptabTe level of Iraffic
noise 10 occupanls of !he proposed dwelling.
4. The developmenl proposed lor !he property is far mo.-e ir.lensive lhan !ha! of
neigllboo-v-og lois
We understand lI1al College Terrace is a popular residential area and that new
and larger houses wil gradoaDy repl3Ce older exisfing housing in !he area. but
we feel developers <10 have a responsibllity 10 exisfing residents. A setback of six
feel imlediateTy edjar..enl 10 a boJSY s!ree(. is not in !he best interests of !he
residents 0( Coroege Terrace. !he residents of Ille proposed dwelf.f1g. or !he
schoo! children. pedestrians. cyclists and moIoosts fla! use Stanford Avenue.
i
I
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Planning DepartmeI1l:
City of Palo Alto
2SO Hamiltoo Avenue
Palo Aito, CA 94301
Dear Ms. Grote:
l·I&-94
We are writing in regard to the variance application c( Mark Migdal, wbo
proposes 10 build a new two-slor)' bouse ,..ithln the required 25 foot seiback at
1475 Stanford Avenue. We own, and reside at, 2025 Columbia Street Our \0(
adjoins the Migdal propetty on the Columbia SlIee! side. We oppose the
&ranting of any nriance 10 Mr, Migdal for construction of a ne",
bouse within tbe required 15 foot setba~k.
Background 10 the eu ITelll situation:
Two years ago Mr. Migdal purcbased Ihe (once slate!y) home a! 1475
Stanford Avenue, which had been the residence of the MacPberson family for
over 40 years. Allhe lime 01 purchase, (he property was beautifully landscaped
with mature birch trees and enormous camelia bushes. Over the pas! two years.
Mr. Migdal bas (occasiOilally) used the bouse as his persona! residence. The
property was essentially allowed 10 become derelict. No watering was dooe, and
the landscaping deteriorated 10 such a poin! that the mature birch trees died.
~se trees were chopped al aoou! six feet. and Ibe braoches were
unceremoniously scanered in the bushes where they remain to Ibis day. The only
lime the grass and p/aD1el strip were mowed was prior 10 lhe World Cup games
'a! Stanford when the city cited Mr. Migdal for violating the weed ordinance. On
other occasions. we trimmed the bedge so the sidewa.'k remained clear.
II seems thaI Mr. Migdaloow wanlS 10 "beautify the neigbborbood~ by
bw1ding tw~ additional houses on the property which he will then olfer for sale.
In pursuit of !hal goal, he obIained a "certinca!e 01 compliance" (COC) 10 redraw
the \0( lines. AI this time we Slale for the record tha! we consider lhe melJrods
llSed 10 obIain the coc. and the conditions uoder whkh the COC was gran!ed, 10
be subject 10 possible future litigation. For e.ample, the conditions staled in lhe
leiter of June 11. 1993 10 Mr. Migdal from Luz Cones, Engineering Techlucian
II, City 01 Palo A!Io, slate that -demolition of the existing bouse is required at Ihe
applkant's expense, because the house will cross the new \0( lines' .. ~.
Furthe!1DOre, this letter required a bond 10 be posled which was subject 10
"... -
:,,':
2
fodeiture after 180 days. In the final coc. the e:<isting bouse was allowed 10 be
left as is, ill a ooncormforming position. The bond period was iocreased \0 15
years. The discrepancy between !he orlgiDallelter 0( conditions and Ibe final
c:ondilioos in !he COC is ;t:markable, and, if required. will DOt go uochalJenged.
We lIlso resetVe \he right 10 raise the issue 0( wbether tbe Migdal development at
147:1 Stanford A.cooe is a subdivision. and therefore subject 10 requirements
such as ARB review 8lI specified in the original coc.
The current situation:
Mr. Migdal b8lI applied for a nriance 10 coostruct • large new bouse on
the Io! along Stanford Avenue with the front porch (which is actually Oil !be silk
olthe house) at Ii reel from tbe properly liD' and with lIN: fronl wall al II
reet from the line. The legal sel-back from Stanford Avenue is 2S reel
According 10 lbe Ci-Iy of Palo Allo Zoning Guidebook. lhe requiremenls
fOf obtaining a ,-ariance are l'>ree-fold (aU conditions must be found 10 apply):
J. The property for which a variance is requested is unique.
2. Based on the uniqueness of !be \0(. the propeny owner does 001 bave
!he same development rigbts as owners 0( Iypical loIs. The property
owner suffers an wrr~ hardship_
3. The variance will no! be detrimental \0 surrounding property owners or
reside!>\S.
0Jr opinion Oil Point I: As defined by the coc. the new lo! is unique. As
far as we can determine, it is !he ooIy lot in !he R-l Zone in CoUege Terra«
(AmIY-rst 50 William3 Street) thai bas its side on Stanford AvenDe. The other 38 sm parcels front 0010 Stanford Aven"e (narrow direction faces the street).
However. il must be stressed that tbe lot is unique only because Mr. Migdal
defined it as sucb in !he ax:. In doing so be created his OWII unique silll3!ion.
This is 00( grounds for a variance. II is our conlention that. for !he purpose of a
variance applicatloo. uniqueness is delennlned solely by pre-existing conditions_
A property owner can creale " unique parcel if he so chooses, but canllO(
(simultant'Oosly) chen lum around and use Ihar uniqueness as grounds for a
variance.
Our opiniou 00 Point 2: Once Ilaving defined !he new lo!, Mr. Migdal has
lhe same development rigbts as any other owner 0( a typical lot. The Io! is
SOx 125', wbicll is typical of !he area. The lot is subject 10 !he same setbacks and -
zoning ordinances as any other lot that would be similarly sil1lared. Ir was with
·--.
3
fulll:oowledg. olthis thaI Mr. Migdal created !he new lot. Does Mr. Migdal
suffer all/l1ll'easonal;le "ardsbip~ Absolutel), not! III his leIter to tbe Cit)'
(received Nov. 14,1994) Mr. Migdal himself stites tbat a new bouse buill witbin
lega! setbacks will calise hardship 10 [he people "liviltg i,~ slIch a house. ~
Perceived hardship 10 !he future owner cJ a proposed /lOuse is JlO( grounds for a
variance! A variance is granted 001)' OIl the grounds ol urueasooable hardship 10
!he appIican«(pritseni owner}. The ooIy hardship that has !>eCaDen Mr. Migdal is
that he chose \0 define !he lot lioes in such a way as 10 limit his developmeot
options. His hatdship is that. in the abseoce ol a variance, he feels he WIll not
realize full financial gain from tbe property. Financial l'.araship based 00 real
estate speculation. especially wben self· imposed, Cannol !>e used as grounds for a
variance.
Mr. Migdal bought the property at 1475 Stanford Aveoue wilb the express
purpose ol development. We Jcnow Ihis for two reasons: I) we were $Old by Ihe
seller, Marie MacPherson Ihat tbe property was being purchased for development
(interesling in retrospect is that Mr. MacPherson quid!y added Ibat "(he
developer woold not have \0 resort 10 tbe variance process~j. and 2) prio< 1<>,
and shortly afler purchase, Mr. Migdal had surveyors scrutiruzing the property,
DOling the potentlallocation of new lot lines. positions of UUS, ele. He purchased
!he property wjlb full Icoowledge Ihat. as a oorner lot on Stanford Avenue, it was
subject 10 zonirg requiremenlS such as !he 25' setbacl:. Therefore. the enlire
sirualion Mr. Migdal now finds himself in is entirely ol his owa making. He
painted himself into a comer by redefining Ille Io! lines and DOW cries "bardsN p .•
He fiDCls DO sympathy from us; nor should be find any from the zoning
administrator.
Our opinion on Point 3: 1bere are many reasons why this variance wiU be
detrimeolallO surrounding propenies and \0 fbe (;"OOlmunil):
I. The visual impact ol!he proposed new boose will be appalling. Thrust
IIIOI'e !han haIf·way into !he 25' setback. the buiJding will stand 0Il1 from every
oIher house in the R·) zone 011 StanfOld Avenue. A survey oClbe position of the
od!er 38 buildings in !he zone is attached. Thls shows Iha.I of the 38 buildings,
only 3 are significantly (more than ca. 1-4') in the 25 • setback area (745
Stanford Avenue, porch at ca. 18' setback; 963 Stanford Avenue, ho"se al ca. IS'
setback; and 1053 Stanford Avenue, 9' setback. Ali Ihr~ houses are older. single
slory, and face onlo Stanford Avenue with tbeir narrow dimensioc 10 the street.
Pbolographs 0( the corresponding blocks are attached. Also attached is a
pOOtO"c<"ph of a two-story house (this one at tbe comer ol Cornen and Stanford)
Iha.I is si1D11ar in size and coosltuClioo 10 Iha.I whlch Mr. Migdal proposes 10 place
at a 6-11' setback (porch and (!OIlt wall, respe.."Iively). On the basis of gross DOn-
.>
--"·--~·"·--'~ .. ":IiII.fll~·.;
'\ ":-~,.
.. _ .... -'-" ~:¢;-:::~-.~-"-": .
. /'
.-.. "
.--~ .
4
.,
;
conformity in setback with the OIller houses on the 10 bloch of Stanford Avenue
in the R·t zooe, soch a bouse, especially on sucll • visible corner lot. will be a
visual blight 10 lbe community. Palo Alto residenl. have long embraced, an<!
strive<! to maintain. tbe beaU!)' of their city. Grand!!g a variance for Ihis
proposed visual eyesore would run counter 10 that tradition.
2. The negative effect of point I (visual blight) 00 the property .ahtes of
neighboring homeowners is obvious aDd would place an unreasonable hardship 00
these homeowners. One could argue Ibat the proposed new bouse will improve
property values in the neighbo.-boocI by removing the genen;lIy untidy cooditioo
of the existing lot. There are, however, far easier methods for imprm'ing the
geoera! appearance (how about some watering?) tban by creati&g whal 1I'e
OOilSider 10 he an evel' bigger eyesore.
3. There are safety issues related 10 siroating a large boose so close to
Stanford Avenue. The most obv'.ous relates 10 Ibe future residenls themselves.
Stanford Avenue is a very busy streeL Placing a fronl porch at a 6' setback is
in"itlng trouble for a famil)' with children. especially in lien of tbe strict
limitations on fencing 0( such a corner Jot on Star.ford Avenue. Even the parking
strip, which is in reality a bike lane, is a dangerous place for a child.
4. Placing such a large SlrUCl"re within the setback coald limit future
options regarding the upgrading (Of widening) of Stanfo<d Avenue. Obviously it
woold be impossible 10 widen tb<: street in lhe setback direction if bouses are in
that zone. Furthermore, if Stanford Avenue is widened in lhe other di='I.ion
(hence an even busier street), the proposed house becomes an even grater
liability in lerms of ClCalpant safety.
5. Granting a variance UDder socl! contrived conditions would encourage
ocher developers 10 talce a similar tact Once the zoning administrator grants one
sncb appeal, he or she will uodoubtably begin receiving others of a similarly
dubious nature. This stale of affairs ",ill have a disastrous effect boIb 00 the
College Terrace community, where many older properties may be "iewed as grist
for the development mill. and in the rest of Palo Alto as well.
A. staled ill the Zoning Guidebook. the variance process is viewed as the
last resort. Mr. Migdal bas available any Dumber of options for de"etopmen! of
his propeI1y without having 10 resort 10 the variance process. He could, for
example. fix up the existing bouse and grounds, and sell the property for far
more than he paid for it. Similarly, he con!d rem"ve the existing boose, gel "
new COC (which for him should be no problem!) for two lots, and build /Wo
very maIketable (and expensive) bomes properly set back with large yards.
These alternatives do not sound like hardships 10 nsf It is not our inlention, nor
responsibility, 10 dictate 10 Mr. Migdal wbal he should do "'ith the property. The
variance proceeding, however, gives us the right:. and even the responsibility, k>
(
"<-'-.~.
s
reD biro wllat lie should IIOl do with his property. If Mr. Migdal was to propose
an approp<iaJe development plan (wbicb would DOl involve signif><:anr
encroachment into the lS' setbact}, we the neighboring homeowners would
gladly support him in his endeavor.
finally. Mr. Migdal has Ihreatened 10 build an "ugly railroad car· within
the legal set-ba<::ll (whieb allow only a 19 fOOl wide bouse) if !be neighborhood
residents do DOt support iii! yari~ application. However, be must remember
thaI, at the eod of the day, he (presumably) will want to obtain financial gain
(rom this del'i:lopment la IodaY'$ market, an "ugly railroad cu· siruatcd Oil a
busy street will not afford a positive financial return to a builder in lenn! ol even
oonstruction com, let alone the value ol the underlying land. Furthermore. socII
a house would despoll lbe remaining property and devalue wbatever other
development be undertakes.
In summary, IlIere ue many reasons wby tbe wning administrator should
deay tbis uriaoce application. The most compelliog reasons relate 10
inappropriate use olilie variance process, and to the numerous adverse effects ol
the proposed lIouse 00 !he romm unity.
Sincerely:
~ \) OcuJ'L--
Robin D. aark
MruyMac~
2025 Columbia Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
home-851·0581
. work· 85.5-5968
attachmeots
I . . I~'~
,-~" .
-
d
d · I dl
• q -
---. • • •
OJ
•
I
i
Proposed new house
.;;.'
-
d
d
d • q
a
--' -
r =1
q
q
o
d , -gl
~I jJ
J
I
I
....... '
D~ •
Oi · -dl • o ,
~
I
i
College Terrace R·l Zone
(Amherst to Wi!liams Street)
fIOfl-C(}fl/orming front setbacks
shown i'1 black. I prcposed new /loose at 1475
Stanford Avmue is circled
..
1600 Block of Stanford Avenue • • o ---:~ • AmIIer$l : _____ i
, •
: 2'" :-· • · • • • • • • • • • • • · • · · • · • • · · · · · , · • · • · · , • • • · • • • • • • • • • ---_.:
1500 Block of Stanford Avenue
Older single sIo.-yhome
2.f aetbad< (pan 01 house}
OJ
1501
Cclumbia
.
> .
J
I
1400 Block of Stanford Avenue
{showing proposed new house}
1C7S
· • · · • • · • · · · ·
· · ·
I
\ \
\ I
Proposed /IcI.Jse with
Stanford AI'eIlOO sehek 8t
11'10 w~, 6' 10 porch where
25' is !eqviled
I
1400 Block of Stanford A venoo
147$
· • • • • • • ·
· • · · • · · • • • · •
I
."
1300 Block of Stanford A venue
Darlmoof1l ----. • · If • • · o • · · o · · o
I
I
1200 Block of Stanford Avenue
• · · o · o • · • o · · · · o
I
--
1100 Block of Stanford Avenue
· o • · • • [J
· ·
I
·1000 Block of StanfOf'd Avenue
I
------. ~
: 27
Ok!JII' $Ingle S1Qry lIOUS4 0;
at es 21'" $etbaek -:
· · o · • · I to;, I
• · · • o · · · • o , , • • ,
Prrncelon
I
,
900 Block of Stanford Avenue
-------,
Single sfo<)' 1IOOse I
aI ea 23' setbad< .
:-ir
· ED • · · [J
· • • o · · •
I
, ..... ' .
. '".
•
800 Block of Stanford Avenue
, .
700 Block of Stanford Avenue
End 01 R-l Zone
WeDestey
D . . o
Murtiple family zone ~
II
I I
27
. ',.:-
Ms. Lisa Grote
Zoning Admlnlstratoc
CRy ol PaIo Alto
250 Hami!ron Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
January 19, 1!t95
Re. 1415 Stanford Avenue
De.,. Ms. Grote,
Marth. C flaM
2265 Bowdoin Strtel
l'~o Allo, CA '!4306
I am concerned regarding se,eral aspecfs ol U", propos<>d de,.ek'-'PmeM al 1475
Stanford Ave. and adjacent two lois on Columhia Street.
Fllst TIle denloper proposes 10 build a house with an II-foot setbad from
!he Stanford Ave"ue property line instead of lne 2Hoot setback normany
requited on that street I feel this is most un,,'ise given the level of traffic on
Stanford A venue as documented in the EIR foe the proposed Palo Alto
Sianford recla~ water project and the accompanying noise ru>d exhaust
fume levet This is ol pazti<:,Jlar coocern beea use the proposed house will be
oriented parallel to Stanfocd Avenue and will thus be exposed a!oog its enrue
leng!h,. nDI: just on a si>o<l hoot wall as would be the c ... if il were orierJed
perpend:.'Clllar II> Stanford Awnue.
Second, Use of the "Certific:atl? of Compliance' Process in this case and the
lad ol public noIlee ol what is clear! y a subdh'ision in proc.,;s run counler 10
the premise thaI considering input from the public is a vita! part of the
zoning administration process.
Finally. please add me 10 the Notice list for the decisron on this variance
applica60n and on »-.y o&..er matter c().')(et!'.IDg the development of H7S
Sta.nfo<d Aven\le and the two lois next 10 it racing Columbia Street.
Your. trulY.
1U.v:tL {.i _ fiJi'
Marlha C. Flatt
".'
Ross & Scot!
A 'ra(~'" CoTO""lJOII
520 Sout'i:l Grand Avenue
~ae 30J
Dia:IIII p, $co\\.
"'-lI!iiorl Do. An.t
Xc.Iic ... A1ICCI
~8.-~flNln
~CDeF~ l...m Angeks. C:aUfornia 9OOTI-2610
-re~ C'J.3) rn-l9l1
F":.JOmik: (2Ul: !'n-BJ9
\'JAr "' ,roPIER & U.s.. MAfl
Ms.. Lisa Grme
Zoning AdJcini~1!2tO(
City of Palo Aho
2SO Hamilton Avenue. Fif5.t floo(
PetTo "AJt-t>. CzJifotnia 943D2
January 19.1995
h!o Nt? orr.
e SItt~ "1'eIII1M:, $..ir:e 319
P.aro ..... "'to. C.li~ ")[)6
Tclep1la1e: !~ &1'-$611
l'aoOmi1c..: ("15) &l1-S680
F'" "" 1/10
Re: Oppo~JTJcn To Var~ance ApptkatKln 1'0._ 94-'i-18;
1m S!anfo<d "vegue· AWlic.nt Mr. Marl< /.tied,1
Dear M.~ Grote;
1l>c undersigned is. re>XIen! at 2103 Ambem Street ",.hiM the City and
this C<m>JT1UJ1k.--a~lcn otkrs the foTIowing opposition to me ~opose:d variance to at'low the
Soca6on and construct.iOn of il Clew twD-sto:)' single farruly -residence ()!l property bear.rng
the street address c;l !475 Stanford Avenue 'lWhtcb v,"owld xTuaOv tJke a(Ces..~ from
CclurrtN:1 Y.reeL-•
F!fit. it "'ould appear from some Wl}{rnarioa in lhe related t:ertitkate cl
(.ompliar.ce fife fha[ wbar caused the ctJrrenr appllcation We variance is the aM[l of the
applkant himself cboo>ing \0 develop L,", subjeCll'ropert:f wi,h thr •• , rather than two
singt.e fa-m[ly re$kfeoce!'.. It is a ,,'en established p;"L!1dple of granting \'ariances; that tbey
c-.mnot be used for banhbips. created b)' the project apptiC'.lnt. Indeed. it wou~d seem
that .... hat is sought here is a self-created economic advantage nO{ the obtaining of 21
property rillll1 ,bot bas beea granted 10 similarly reSlooed property. !be n",mal putpOSe
.of a variance_ A~ there is no shov.'ing io tfle record produced by tn.e appricant. who
00<5 have tne burde. 0( proof, of similart~ restricted property that ,","Iled from
\-arfunce5 granled onder similar drC"L-lmSlances. Staled diffuemTy. althougb there are
ru-sentb' ael,'iark,,)[}S from current single-family devc:l0pment standards til the College
Ms. Lisa Grote
~ng Administrator
City of Palo Alto
lancary 19, 1995
Page 2
.. "'-.
Terrace area there is no evidence that those de"iaoons resulled from a s~lf-indU<'ed
~ardshlp of the invo)'-w 0" ners ol those properties there b)' occasioning tbe granting ol
!be respectP.re varian~s. .
Secoodly .. variances are not lQ be granted unless exceptional circumstances
are present and tneie is DO evideoce of sucb drcumstarn:ei> espcciafly liIIben tbe benefits
of the single...family development standards are being eroded on a zone·wide basis.
J>racticall1 'l"'a1ting. it shoukl be asked what is the purpo5e or de"elopmeut .tandards In
• single-family neighborhood if it is DO{ '" preserve the cnaracteri5tics or a single-fanuly
neighborhood? Further, tl1e app;ieant is a L:OOWIJ developer of single and multi-tamily
housing in the CorJege Terrace area and some con...;.ioer.ijtIon must be gwen 1", the fact
that b!os continuIng practke appears 10 be e-eve'klpmeru by 'tne same method -that is,. 10
sed: -variance from applicable cC\-'c'topment standards. Rererence 1; made 1;0 we singte
falTl.ily bome al tlle northeast corner of HaoO\.'er and Stanford Avenue "flere wariances
from development -standards were graflted.
The present reliance on the U~ of Cl care.gori.c;ll exemption l:Jn&:r the
Calif.orni-a Environmeotal Ouafi.ty Act is a1"'-O questioned as it does oex appear t.o be
supported by ailY ana'fysls in. the record. but rather on1y ;it r:rerence t<> a CEQA
Gu ideIT DeS section.
YrnaIly .. because the \'3riance soogbt does not appear to be consistent v.ith
e.stablished leg:.il bases for granting a variance the consistenC)' of this ~pp!ic'd.60n with the
goals and poricies of the City Genera! Plan requiring tbe preser .... ation and enllancemeot
of edsting £i!'!g~-fa.'n~ly resider.tIc::f neigJ-.OO:-hv04...~ i-o. .;!.b.o GIJ;!!",tio-!1ed If this t)'~ of
practice were continued in the Conege Terrace an~a both the geoer4ii ptan land use
designation and ~.e iropTe:menting zoo1ng wouM effectively be fnJ.s.i.I~ted b)I transferring
the area into one wbere: development standards .are not enrOiced.
Foe an the rea50n5 stated in this cO:iTlmunkatioll it:ts respectfully requested
tlIat you &:oy tlle ClJITent variance appEcatjon .
. '-
• January 18. 1995
1059 D_"-It Sltuf
,.,. ~,.. t./il-ill "'06
Ms. lisa Grore. Zonhg Aclminislrator
P1amng Deparlmeol, City of Palo AIIo
250 Hamilton Averue
Palo AIIo. earoto.T>ia 94301
JAN 191995
~t:_:_ ---.'.;_.::J
~-.lmfT."'''::'' '-.:.;1't.1-~S"'
RE: ApprocaflOl1 for variance for !le\O horne constr.lCtion at 1475 Stanford Ave ... ue
Pub1ic Hearing: Ttu-sday 11191'95. 3:00 p.m.
We write \0 u:ge )'00 10 deny !he appflCalJon for a variance subm 1!ted by Mr. M.,.. Mig<'..aI
for 1475 Starlord Avenue. We have cwned ou.-home one bloc!<: _ay from fle lot in
queS'".xln since 1984. and love"" College Terrace nelg/1bo(hood. One reason we enjoy
our ~ 50 mud! is that !he NIMBYISm Iha! i5 so prevaTeni in oIher parts of Palo Me>
is simply no( ro.m here. People here come from many walks of Lofe -retired folks,
<:a;pert"' •• doc\ors, tI1OCher$ on AFOC, librarians, students. writers, executives,
secrelBries and piano lfo-.ac:her$, 10 name a few. There is a real 5EIIlSe of COITlI11Uru1y, bIA iI
is I!W'l open community. no( an exclusive club.
Recen!Iy, however. !he disease of "spec" houses has begun \0 plague O<r reighbo<!1ood.
We are not Talki'lg abc>I1 remodels or upgrades made by homeowners, txA hOuSes
designed for maxiT1<Jm profit 10 Ihe maximum FAR by deve10pefs wilh no permanenl
addresses. Often "" prope1y was acquired in an estate saTe, in an undert'.ande<1 proce$s
where famifles who are 1Oo!<i1g for a horne are beaten out by developers waving !u1d'.es
of cash. These developers seem \0 have flQUl'ed out aa !he angies for gelling hir plans
hOugh Cit)· Han. and by !he lime !he publ"1C finds out abo<.( i\. I is too Tate.
We are coriiden!. however, Iha! such was noIlhe inlen1 of Ihe City Council nor of !he
Pfamjng Commission wflen!hey enacted !he existing R-l regu'.afIOnS. We trust also il'a!
!here has been no cI-.ange in !he. criteria for granting a variance. Ratl'.er,!he variance
process should apply when a preexisting conditioo creales a hardship lor a prQPerty
owner which camoI be oIherwise relieved and which has no delelerious effect on anyone
else. The variance process is no! designed 10 help developers maximize prof.ts ()( suIlvel1
eslablisfled res!ricIioos enacted 10 protect Iha pubrlC nleres!.
\'Wh Ihls bac:kgrou'ld. we would like 10 raise several concems abo<.( Ihe pros>er1Y
(previous.'y six lois. andapparen!Ty no ... heeJ at 1475 Stanford A_ewe and abo<.( !he
yar.ance appfocalJon under consideralioo at Iha hearing on Jar<;ary 19th.
-j-
. ,
," ~,:
,"""0,
,.
1. On what ground" was the certlfkate of compliance process used to ulldertake
suc:h • major redlawIng of the lot nnes and the creation of th.-ee entirely new
lots with no oppommlty ,« public review or Input? To dale. ev<)(yOne we tave
conIacted outside fla ~ departmen! who haS ~.eard of the CMifteale of
compliance process believes Oc.a!. this was created for very minor actions. such as !he
erasing of old 10\ lines wI1kh resuft ... no<K:OOfomW1g lois. In this case, what has
beeo done is 10 erase ALL the lines re!ale<!!o Ihe preexisting five ~' x 1~' Io!s rac&-lg
Stanford Ave. and one ~' x 125' Io! facing CoIumbla St, and \hen add new lines 10
create hee 5f1 x 125' lois faci1g Columbia Certalnly this should no! be treate<! as a
minor admOslralive procedure'
2. WIly cfid the documente •• aIIable f« pubIi<: review not Inc:iude tIM actual
version of the December 1994 certificate of compliance with the revised
conditions? h;!ea<l,!he packet R:Iuded only a prerlll1ina1y version from .Mle. 1993,
and only .... oug11 the per5isten! elfofls of a neighbor who is a real estale professional
were c:oocemie<:! citizel'.s able 10 diSOO' ..... IhaI Mr. MigdaI .... '1I NOT be required 10
demolish It", ".isling t.ovse and meet aR C>thef conditions wnhin 6 monIhs. lnSlead he
apparenUy haS 18 months and it is no! clear Chal the original condition' 6 wflidl
referred!o ARB review and meeting an R·1 Zoning re9<J1alioos sti! applies.
Established process seems 10 IK"e gone awry here, and this issue needs 10 be dea~
with before any decisions are made &bot.( a proposed variance.
3. Given that the appr",an' created these new lois by IUs own actions, how can
th .... be any gn>UncIs to gran! a variance? According 10 the 1 tJ8I94 fell",
accompanying !he variance approealioo. '\..,., specifIC harclship in complying with this
requlrement [Le., !he 25400l selbad< along Stanford Aver.Jel would be no! ooly in !he
prac:rocal inpossibility of designing • decent house ... SlY..h a narrow Tong strip ci larod,
but also il obvious inconvenience and awkwardness ... 5ving ., such a house'
Mr. M"iQdal's concern lor !he fUrure reSidents of !he house (who obvious'Y will no! be
his fain ilyj is 1ouChing. He aTso appa<en!ly oor .. ves that h design he has proposed
for !he To! (whiCh ... auld require an uropreceden!ed variance) 'OICK.'Id be & beneft 10 !he
surro .... "6ng community. as compared 10 !he "Ugly 'ra~road car' st>.ape" of the house
flat could lega~ be buill wilhout a varlance -assum ing lhallhe appropriate body
<Iecided Ihal!he ,.,.... Io! ines "'8 n lac! legitimate.
Hc7.vever, aft of !his is noo-reIevanl A property owner camot assert tha! a 2f>.foot
se!bacl< which has beer. ... place lor e,er 30 years. combiled w11h otl1e< city
requiremenis that were enac!ed lor !he pubfoc good weD before he created his new
lois. preserits a special f>.ardstJp~ There is ev'<lence In&! Mr. Migdal was pIan."lUlg on
appIy¥1g for a valiance within a f ..... weeks of acquirlng!he prope<1y (see his lell", of
1217/92). furihermore. Mr. M'>gdaI is no! pfaced at a disadvantage relalNe!o any
oIheo' Stanford Aveooe properly .,..,nee
Also, one who is ~ for a variance must demonstrate Ih2l hiSli1er proposal
would no! r.ave • deleleriOus effect 00 o!her ~ O'<filerS illhe area. \I'<ha! we
see il tIls app[ocallon is no such proof, only a I11inIy veiled heat 10 build an "ugly
'railroa<! ca(" houSe r I/1i$ appfJCalion is denied.
~1y, such an acIlon would dras\ica11'j 'OO-Jce Mr. Migdal's chaoces of p<cft
-2
'. · ',~""
..
.' ..
. ,
tom f>e 101 in que!lion, as weI as !he O!her two he aeated. \\hltle it m ig/1I be legal, I
would certainly be detrVneotallO his own interest Mr. Migdal does have O!he< options
for Ihe economic use of his property, such as !he upgrad"ong of !he existing home or
hi aea!ion of two 1015 out of tie 125' x 1SO' Iota!. IIIhich could wea prove profrtable for
him withOut raising h objections of !he community.
4. Why has this proeass beim allowed to pro<:ud withOut ARB ""vlew1 Even I by
SOIllIt 5trelch of !he iTlaginalion Ile 101 lineS were aeated legitimately, wha! Mr. Migdal
is proposing is clear1y Ile development of h"ee adjacent houses, not single 101
developmenl h such. plans for an h"ee lots should be submitted for ARB re-Mw.
We understand from oonversalions with Joe Colonna and others Ihal Mr. M"lQdafs
current wert is \Q preserve Ile existing house en !he middle 101 (which lIIol.,1d require
stJl more exceptions 10 exismg setbaCk l'L~es). W1aI he intends \Q do with the Ihird lot
is 1.I"odea', tM I is safe \0 say some large houSe WOUld be sandwiched in \Q..mat is
tw:NI a gracious backyafd. Our poinI is simply !hal the cily has established a process
for rlMewW1g c:hanges \0 a neighborhood of lllis magnitude, and \his process should
be IlSed in this case.
5. In order 10 granl a valiance 10 something SO basi<: to th. city's General Plan as
the 25-foot setbac:k which prevans on connectors and at!erials. the apprlCant
shoukl "ave to demonstrate an overriding pubrl<: goo<! which would 19$ult.
Although Mr. M"igdaI clearly ber.eV8S lllat recelvirlg !he variance he requests would be
profitable forhim. ... e see no pOOrlC beneft in his proposal. Furthermore, Stanforcl
Avenue is already carrying a large volume of rafflC for a 2-1ane road Building a new
house which encroaches on !he 25-foof setbacI< would severely Iim~ the cily's options
I (God foItljd) h slreet wooId ever have \0 be widened. Removing !he f ...... older
collages which intrude more Ihan a few fee! into Ihe 25-foo! setback ... acid be grief
e<lOU\tI tor !he cily. Imagn, wtlat !he expense and trouble WOUld be i'I removing an
expensive new home f1a! was allowed 10 have h main door come \Q within 6 fee! of
h property1inel
Note also !hat the yard on the S\arIo<t! Avenue side of the proposed house would
be so I'.2rTO\Il!hat no fence could ever be put i\ e.g. 10 keep du1dren from ruming
into Ihe street As for Mr. M"lQdaI's point lhat hre is "an unt..'9U8ltf wide (12 It I
parking iane" be!lO'een !he lraffle lane and tJa curb, let !he record shoIo flat !he
eooect deslgna!ion for 8\is space is in fact a combined bike lane and paro-,g lane.
StanfOrd Averue is a deSignated city b,ke route wllict1 is used heavily by both adult
and child cyclists. Ra!her I18n being urosually wide, 'Ihe 12 fooI1ane is act.Ja1ly 100
NlTO\II for OJITent standards, wr.ich require fie separation' of paOO1g Janes and bike
lanes. This wi]! becOme an issue when Stanford Awmue is resurfaced.
6. For !he sake of argument. le! us inaglrle !hat City Han has been taken over by forces
~ vision of !he Mure is very different from t1at which has governed Palo Mo for
approaching 20 years. Even so, there is a compening, self-interested argument
for the city 10 deny the variance application In !his c:ase: existill9 noise levels
on Stanford Avenue are so high that a house constructed within the 25-foot
setback win 1IInx.s1 certaini)' read to demands on the city for noise mitigatiOn.
;T,.
h documenIed n the attached exce<p! from the Fna! EIR done n 1989 fo< the
SlarIord Univefs<\y General Use Permit noise leve!s measured dumg the peak
aIIemoon commute level n Ap;i 1989 81 two poinIs afong Stanford Ave<lU8 on eilher
side Of 1475 StanfoI'd (east Of Peler CouIIs and eest Of Hanover) were rema.1<abIy
similar: Ila maximum nstanIaneous <t-) noise level was 78 decibels and n
clectJeTs. respecti\-ely, while !he maximum peak hour average (l,.J noise level at both
IocaIions was 68 decibelS (see chart and explanalion on p. 27-3). Giv4lll aij tlaIwe
know about Ila vob'ne and speed Of traffIC on Starford Avenue Ioday as compared 10
1989, there is every reason 10 befieve tlaI J noise levels were mea ..... ed n front of
1475 Stenford Avenue, \he results wool<! be even higher Ioday.
FUft1ermore. the eslimaflOl1 Of !he 65 d8A confOlX (the lower Ii", I of Sanfa Clara
Counly's "Crtic9r category fo! residential uses) and 55 d8A coniQUI' (\he lower limil 01
the "Cautionat'y" category) done fo<!he chart on p. 27~ wouid also apply 10 the
prope<1} n ques!ion. as weU as 10 most of !he Stanford Avenue properties down 10 the
Yale stop sign Based on !he existng noise level n 1989. !his would place !he 65 <l8A
conIour 8140 fee! from curbside, and Ihe 55 dBA con!.,.,.. at m fee! from cubside.
As the report noted. "it c:an be eas~y seen lIl.tllle present ellpO'Sllre of lIle
harMs In Palo Alto bordering Stanford AvenUi! to problema6c noise levels IS
virtually assured by their relative proldrrity 10 lila! roadway.· (po 27 .... ). Unless
and unlillhe city of Palo Mo (!ec;des 10 drasticslly reduce !he average vehicle speed
an<i{0!" volUme C'l1raff1C on Stanford Avenue. lherefo<e. I v.'OUld be excee<ftngTy uowise
10 permit !he conslruc!ion or a house whose side waR and many windows would be
weI within !he 4O-fooI conIour t-om curbside!
There are many o(her issues w!\i<:.h make lhis appfJcalion for a .a.-iance problematic. e.g.,
h3 floodrtghls from SCAA le..-ris courts.wtUch would mal<e life miserable fo< anyone IivV1g
so close 10 Stanford AvetkJe. !he queslio<", Of..mat will happen 10 !he utility poTes which
wool<! be smack il ile mlddle of lie new driveways or !he ilIensity 01 !he development as
compared 10 the curenil)' prevaifng comlnlxliljl sIandard. BIA we !rust 1hat flere will be
no need 10 go fu1her n proleslirog flis proposal which is so ronIraIy 10 !he goals and
policies of !he cily's General Plan. Thar.k you fo< your considerafiort
CC. Ariel Calome. City Mooney
k ali@" ~~ f4k",-
Kathleen Foole Durham
-~----:-----
. . :
;~.
. " -.' -... "
• ... --
STANFORD GENERAL USE PERT\.fiT FINAL EIR 1'1'13"i
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Commet!t27.1
,-
The ccmment is DOted-The specific responses \0 specific concerns of the
~ are described below.
Cornm •• ts 21·1 tbroucl! l7·U
See response 10 Comment 11·1
Com!!!!!1lt 27·13
In its <liscussioo of existing noise Je,iels along majoe .c<:CS5 roads 10 the Staclord
0IlDpus. the EIR rorrect.} iden~ the mot tbat noise levels in the ~:&s of ill.
roads wen ~red Critical for res;aential uses. Howe.,er, its impacts is was
focused on defuicg !he incremental impacts of the GUP revision ar.d it did DOt
ll<OI)05ed mitigations Joe existing ;>rt>blclllS. To correct Ihls deficiency, the Stanford
P!anr.ing 0I5ce hired Vmcent saJmon, an acoustical consu1t2.nt, to carry out a sene.
of measuremODts at :esiden<es along Junipcro Serra Boulevard and 10 propose
mitig'dtions Joe any adverse noise imlJac:"" un<:oYered. Se""raJ of these residences
beJooged to members of the StanfooHonthilI Residen", Group. The!indinl!> of the
SalmOn 5Iudy are reported in the respocse$ 10 mo<e specific <:OmII><r.ts given below.
Il1Dipcro Serra ConicIor
As a result of the ro:>eenl ewer adverse traffic noise impacts expr .... d by the
Stanford FOOIhin Residents Association, the Stanford Umvemty Planning Office
hired Vmcent SaImoa, PE, 10 "'..."... czistmg noise levels along Junipero Serra
Boulewro 10 compare them with CoWlly stanc!ards, &nd 10 identify feasible an<!
clfecilYe mitigatioo. measures 10 IDe-roue RIll' problems clisw\'ered. Mr. Salmon',
findmgs were prcser.tcd 10 the Stanford Planning Office in N",,=ber 1988.
Mr. Salmon measured noise at dii!crent times at ",,-ell residences along 1unipcro
Serra Boulc:vard: three mcasurcmcnll were made in the l:arly morning (2.t
550 JIllIipero Serra BoWewrd, SI60 W~ ar.d 781 Frenchmal!', Road, )ieidini L s
of 80 dBA, 53 dBA, ar.d 53 c!B.A, resp<etMly); two measuremen1S wer< made c!uril!g
the PM peak commute hours (at 78S Santa Maria, yielding an L of 68 dBA, ar.d at
430 EsciIpad<:>, .,here the L reached 51 elBA); ar.d two IueasW'bments were made
al niaht (at 1076 Vernier &nd"5481unipcro Semo where 1M L s regis-.ered at SO elBA
and 57 elBA, respectively) Appficatioa of Count)' noise ~ds 10 estimates of L ..
based on this data placed one home in 1M Critical category, two in the Cautionary
category. alIIl four in the Satisfaelory category. If OIle takes the results of the Salmon
survey as representative of aternaI cOOditions ezper:ienced by all homes which
21·1 87ns
., ';
:, -\~~~>:~:.-~./:,~~"
.... ''-;>
. ,';.-
"
closely border that roadway, then it an be expected that about IS pe=c~ 30 •
l'C=~ and 4S percenl of the born .. would experiell<e noise levels in the CtitlcaJ,
CanDonaty,l!Id Satisfacuxy ca"'gories, respectively.
The Salmon study <:lClmir.cd the effectiveness of three classes of mitjgations for th.
reduction of noise impacu 10 resXlents Iiv'.ng along lunipero Serra BOnJevan1 The
lint 'l'OI1Id re.1uce the intecs.ity of noise along that street by c:ontroIIin¥ cxcessl-..e
.. )Ucular speeds and banning tr.JCks. It was found !hat speed red\lCt!OQS would
effectlvely reduce nolsc, but -.rould regWre a C<lnstant police presenu to enforce,
wilil<! barining Inlcb would have a ncgIlgiole efl'ccl OJ! the .verage sound leveL The
second class of mjtjgallons would blcck Ille path of sound IhroUglI the erection of
sound walls 01' benns aJoog lunipero Serra Boulcvar<i It was suggested that noise
t>armn would effectively sCreen adjacent resideo .... pr~d that those bnilt on the
I foo<hiIIs side of that roadway are at least 20 rect high and those built on !be Campus
side arc 3 to 10 feet high. The third class .. "OUkI bett<r insulate of
• i;Dpacted home.; by impr""ing the acoustic damping features
Replacing existing window J>4n<S willl 9132" laminated glass
window frame with acoustically insulated bay ";.lldows were found !O
SlanfonI Aves ..... P.ter Coutts ltDlOd Coniclon
To expand the geographic scope of Ille Salmon study in ~nse to CO!'lIIl:~~. reccmd from other a..... residents, Ille Stanford PIao:nin~ .. ked _~. __ ~
As>ociates take supplemental tncasurements aloIlg Slanlord Avenue and
Coutts Road. assess Ille potential for existing and future noise impaclS OG
adjaum residential nscs, and pr<JP<l"e feasible mitigation measures, is ~.
The land = south of Stanford Avenge (between 11mipcro $ern
Cammo Real) arc predominantly rcsidcn';:!l. ?tcr O:JutlS Road is ~'~.?::~.~.
boundary between land under the iurildiclion of Stanford Ullivenity
within t&c City of Palo Alto. The cllatacter of these two a~'-=It. re,.;&,ctial.
ne~ dill,", noticea!>Iy. The hom .. on Stanford land
construCtion and are se' bad: rela~1y fa.t from the rc,~~
buikIinp come to Stanford Avennc is about 7S f .. ~ lit'"
places, the trifs 0( vacant Ia:ld between road and h<>m .. "'. bc.!'ne<l ,!"". __ ':".
planted. In COD"..." 1M Palo JoJto homes arc oI&r and arc built
Stanford k.-enue. Typically, the clos...t bolDCS are se' b.:iclt from !be roa~9'
the wX\Ih oflMir front or back yards (a cllstanec ",hiclt aVerages about
some come mud!. cloocr. For exampfe, the residence at 1281 Stanford ,,"'=>"
buill right up \() the sidewaIlc: (only 12 feet from lite curo.iIle) and tbc
imcgrity of iIlIlight, wood frame cocstruction is questionable.
Outdoor noise measurements were tak.n at Stanford
and at ODe location along Pcter Coutts Roa~
on April 3, 1\l89. Readings at each location were taken
minutes using • GenRa~ 1S6S-B Sound Level Metet set ~~~=::%; scale. The itlstrwnent was calibrated before and after the
of • GenRad 1981 Mirlrnal Sound l.evcl Calibrator. Table 1
measurement data.
27·2
87118
~ -.
',-
~.
'';'
fAIlLE 1
OUTDOOR NOlSE MEASUREMENTS:
LOCATIONS, TIMES,ANDSOUNDLEYElS
Loc:aOOn
~South side Stanford Avenue,
4 feet from nearest travel
\!IDe, east 0( Han<!\'Cf Street
South side Stanford Avenue
8 feet from nearest travel
lane, east 0( Peter Coutts Road
Nor1h side Peter Cout'.s Road,
15 feet from nearest travel
lane, at Peter Coutts Court
Date
4/3~
~
4/3/89
21-3
'.,
Start
TJIIle
16:50
17:22
17:40
Lew!! ill elBA
L_ L ..
78 ~l
77 ~ \
--:;',
73 61
-.
TAlILEl
DISTANCES TO L .. NOiSE COtITOURS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAYS
IN lHE PROJECT V1CINlTY (FEET FROM CURBSIDE)
Future FutUre
El!i~tiIlll ~~elllli1 WI!b ~tmi!
Roadway [ .. -65 L .. =55 L ... =-L ... =5S L .. =65 L .. =>5
Scan!C«I Avenue 40 223 42 Z30 45 236
(Near Pc:e, Co ....... )
Peter Coutts Rood 10 118 18 128 15 141
{Near Raimundo)
&;sting out<loor noise levels ",e .bo>-e Ill. Critical threshold (i.e, L .. ,,65 elBA) out
to 40 feet from the Stanford k'enue <,.mid<: and C!ey could remain above tb.
Satisfa<:ltxy threshold lLo, L ... > 55 dBA) out 10 223 rcct. Existing!lOise levels aIoag
Peter eoutt. Road "'. lowe, oul t1Iey could remain abeNe !he Sati<faclory threshold
00110 118 roet from curbside. The widtbs of the Cri!ical and Caurionaty zones aloog
Stanf<>rd Avenue are OOC expc!'C!ed 10 change greatly under either future =nario.
Ho<i>eva. the !lOise impact zones aloog Peter Coutts Road could ..;dell more
~. Under GAP ttafiic coodltions, the Cautioaary zone along Pc,,,, Couu.
ROad coilld be abo ... t 20 percent wider!1>an t1Iey are 3' pr=:nt.
The word "coald" is used purposefuDy above 10 acknowledge some j><8ctica1limiu 10
!lOise modeling. As the .listance bet1l.'Cell noise source and rec.,P,oc iru:rea5CS, the
probability increase< lhat the oound path will be blocked by mtervccins terrain
?ea= \Vhile the FHW A moJellW the capacity to account for the .dditiooa!
ac:oustie attenuation afi'<>rded by intcrveniDg land rorms 2Ild manmade .=res, the
uaa c:aJcuJatioas of noise levels in complex terrain is difficult. .... a coosequcnce,
many ruI...oe-thumb have been developed 10 estimate attenuation. For =p!e,
wh<1l several rows of buildings interVene between !lOise source imd r~tor, t!ie fint
row of buildings bas be~n foUnd 10 provide JIO 5 elBA of shielding; subs~nt
row p<OYides an additional 1.5 dBA of ,hielding, up 10 " maximum of 10 dB.... Th.
lIPSbot of tbe abeNe discuJsi9n of noise attenuation is !hat Z23 f=t represents an
estimate of the upper bouud on the widtl! of the strip of land bordering Stanford
A,'eDUC witblr. whiCh tile dL<tU!'bance of rcsidenu by .. hick noi.!e is probable, at
present. Ha'liog said this, it can be easily seen that the prescnt exposu. .. of the
Jf homes in Palo At-.o bo.-dering Sta.fo<d Avenue to problematic noi.!e Ievols is virtually
assured by lI'",ir relativt preximity 10 tha' roadway_ The risk of daturbancc 10
274
87118
"
f ,
•
residents on Stanford !and is, on the ",bole, modI less-11><= width cf the zones 0{
probable disturbance (Le~ ",l1<:re L, > 55 dBA) will increase along both roadways in
the future, but the cbanse 0{ new 'homco being brought into the Caution .. " zone
would be much less aJoog Stanford Aven"e than along reter Cootts Road.
k mentiooed in the Salmoo report, nolse mitiption can be o<complished in .llree
ways: ~ DOisc can be reduced at the snurce (i.e,! the average vehlCJe speed can be
red=d); se<:ond, the J>Oise propa~tion path can be inlelr"pted (Le. through the
constru<:tion 0{ waIJs or berms); third, the receptor c-cn be made more resist3nt to
J>Oise effects (L., acoustie in.-olaoon can be added 10 the walls andle< wiI!dow> 0{ a
bouse)-
Unlike the situation 2loog Juniper., Serra Bo<:lcvard, no instanr.e.s 0{ excessiv~
vehicle speed .. ere observed along Stanford Avenue and Peter eour ... Road du.-ing
the survey_ However, the finding by Korve Enpenng (that the average vehicle
speeds on both roads are above the posted as mph speed limit) i .. upponed by the
aOOd agreement betwe"n the predicted noise levels (assuming average speeds in the
lOw 10 mid 305) and their OOserved .'3lues at the measuremenl location.. An
effective program 01 ndm' enforcement of existi."1g speed limits wou.td have a ."
beoeficial./fecl on noise levels along these roacNro)'"
Ordinarily, the. construction of walls or berms would 'be an effective means 0( noise
mitigation,. but ciTcumsta.nces specific 10 !.be ar~a surveyed would l:i.cJlt tfle
~Ii<:ability 0( this mitigation al the places thaI need it = In some cases, the
t residences to Stanford Avenue!n the Oty of Palo Alto are so c~ 10 the
sidewalk that tbet. is t10 room for a wall (e.s-, the!>ome at 1281 Stanford Avenoc,.'
H .. anover Str.et}. In scilCral, it would be imp"". role 10 afford df~ctiv. an"nuation ~
traffic noise without making the wall virtually continuous from Peter Coons Road 10
i:l Camino Real. This would <Iiminale direct vehicular access from that
neighborhood to Stanford Avenue. k an allematiVe, 10 maintain its effective""ss a
~ bI.ak ill the continuous frentage (e.g, at an intersection o{. minor road with
Stanford A .. n!l'), any wall would bave 10 be rontinued Endicular 10 the break
to prevent noise leakage into Ill. neighborhood. Th. p arrangemen. 0{ the
street grid and the bcmei along Stanford Avenue west of ete, Cout-oS Road Is much
more amenabJe co the constl'Ucticn of a cc..'Otinuous ~"'211 or beroL But the ,icier
=etback itself ~ay adequatelj' attenuate nc:Hs.c: in most cases.
Installation of additional acoustic insulation f.a!"..,. ... such as larinated gjass in a
.... n-psketed w'.ndow frame or p'Q\.;s;on cf a mechanical moans o{ventilation as an
altern:'tivt 10 open v.iDdows, may be the only eff.ctive way to ,edw-e noise impacts
10 residences closest to Stanford Avenue.
Salm<>n m''''",ed noise a' seven residences along junipero Serra BoQTcvard Of
measurements, two were made during the PM peak wmmute hOlm-(An 2::!~~!~O{the terminQ~ usod in """')'sis of noise is foond in Appendix F ofth.
Instruments at 185 Santa Maria and 430 Escarpado recorded peak L 's ..
27-5
. '".-
.. ,~
'';'
ATTACHMENT 7
Letters in support
".,_..:._"
'" ..... ',-' .-,
• i~
Jamwy Xl,lm.
Ms. Lisa Gro<e. ZoruDg Adminis<ralor
",..",.., DepatIcl<l:I. Ci!y of Palo Aha
250 Hamil1or. A ...
Palo Aha. CA 94)01
-'''<. •.• ::::;:->.
The pwposc of" 'ibis l::acr is to give my Alppon to Mart M1gdaI'". Jeqw-St fur a setback v-..riaoc:t:
ell) It. fusllIoor and II fl secOD<! ~oor. The p""" scCbac:t l>cing 15 It. off Stanford Mem.o.
The proposed ~idtDCC' would t;c: sif'.Ia!ed" ar: J 475 SWlfo-rd A"'ie. and. if ibis \'ariance W=1=
granted. cawe lit!k if" ar,y cbange ill the "-5t.ltus q~. iD ~tation to positionIng of bomes aD the
lots alone Stanf~ ":\le. TIler:-:: are presently .. numbc:r "'g~tes thn p .. tn. ... of bomes.,
whkll ~ ;iw.a~ '&'c!l into the 25 It se!back alollg !fie length or Stanford Avenue.
There .. ~ ~ucll S2.id m. the OI-l9--95 pubtk be! rin, ic the way of ncgativ-e comments,. -srith
little: room givea by ~rp.e-present for tile positive input aD Mark MiAldaT's behalf. So [shal'lsbare
my [boupts on the subject with yoe. now.
My eameis Micltv.l Tubbs and [am acarpet1tet 'IIilh i8 yeanofeJ..perience oj build'i.n& bo~&
lhrotIp out the spr:ctrurn. From very bjgb. elld luxury home.~ for the ... ca1d\)I~ 10 reside-mal tract
homes for the families of more modest needs. Soant 0( these homes hav= bees built by pfivate
owner builders.. <:>thers. by developers. .... ho-as a rule are the !r..aln sIlppEen of hOClIC$ to
familia; "Wishing to purchase "'ne.:"'.
The won! "deve'Jo9ct'" was ottea used as a "<!croplivc'" durin& Ihat meeting, Let me 5tate thls
view c.( Mad Migdal: Mart: builds homes that SJl! in 1arlc ~ &y !he: typt of famITIes tbe
cit) of:PaIo Aha wishes 10 attract. Hls homes tend lO k-o\ &nd pone.» (be lmerut1es most
familiar in high end &01:'ctop.'llcnr:
without ovc:wbetming £he present al'Cbitecture or a neighbodlood.
I ~ould Jbo .slY. since I know i: pc'f'SO.oally. Ihat Ma.rtis--quilt a dema!lding bwldCl:" wbeu it
<CmCS to in<isIing !bat. bigb 1<,'01 of qaaIi!y and profcos.ooali>m be Irulin<ai=l in the .. lec<ion
of c!c>ign, maleriaIs aDd cn/ts..'WlSbip.
k is my view. thPit shou!d dW. variance request be £T2IlIed. [be college lm'3ce ccrnmunity wiD
£;ajD & _-ell planned beau.tifuI home. IS weD IS anvthe:r f"iUD.ily. Ih.If: wit! be able w appreciate an
thx c.oltegc ~e aDd the rt;$t of this diverse and beautiful city bas. 10 OffCI.
Miohacl Tnbbs
384 Curtner Ave.
Polo Aha. CA 94306
... -,
1anuazy 10, 1995
MamIF dthe PIannil1g Depar\m<:nl
CiIy dh)oo AIIo
150 HamlltooA~
Palo AIIo, CA 94301
U<mT~Jlor
243S • 11 SU.
San Frar.cis<», ca 'lVIi,
"C:::;:.:t-: -':';:~-:;:~:l
.;::,:..,,..:..t .... ~ ,;",..;c,...:.-...::'".1
1m: AP9Ik:atJoa for Varian<:e for 1475 Swltorcl Ave., Palo Alto. Portioo of the old 1475 Stanfard Ave. f.I,,_
New APN 136-6-109", (Portion oflll<: old APN n~l)
Deaf Sir or Madam:
.
PIeue, be advised.1lW I am the new owner d this property. (Escrow 'H4-914.AN; Old Ropublic
Title) As. result of my JlW"1\asIo. please. coo.sider me as an applicanl for the Variance in question.
lauIllorize Mr. Marit Migdal 10 continue Il:mdling m 1M City ofP"'" AIle all planning and building
maIlen,. rtIaIcd 10 this JIlOIlCllY. However. l ~ 10 inroan you. IlW from 1\0\1 01\ be .... 31 be acting
oruyas my tepmenlalivund as an qenI, but IlOI as an owner. .
1 plan II! alIend the acbodulcd public bearin; in order to support thiB Varl....:e and \Q.1WWef some
poiSibIe questio<Is
'IbaJlk you '"'I:rJ mucIL --J.~~-TtUly. -Leon Taylor
-.-'
-rirlt ~~~fr?1W
rpaRt, Ai-h
..... .tt·lLr~ r.,:!l
(C J?, 691,-
. ~lw~ ~ I Ut'e' fu. ~ ~&J
. 41 .Pltfo fb./lJlMd S{ltpj~. we, r.M~L to-.
tUAJ ~ WAL (f)f.L lfe~ ~ J oMd Ou~ /, ~
. !p-t 6tJ. ~ Vi OJ: l4 {fjYJ~ db ScJum.P.
Wt: ~'e It..£ M-t3' fror!JJs7!li, aAd u~ . ~ ~ ~ fp iJ-&-,1,V1{ ".MO ~
.. ~ £tvf)~~. ~ lww:u~ ftw;~
~. W.lr ~ leu-~u.a1{u. __ (h~
~ 'U<K. rn,~ IA (l.<dlm., j.tQ.J~J
o..~ ~ ~r to. ~ wu{ t4'~f{JVf.
ki4 ~aJ£~. {~9~na-~ f ~K£Y ~ (U::" ~ kL~ b-w-wlJ'tdJ
We;-1v ~~~ OM ~PfW-fW nu::..
1Ytt t-f1! S . CAft. VJ0· t«P ~
~ f!~~ Uf tl:t t)~ -91---t;;( . ~ , ~,:!!?±1,~~~'1e.L!W
-.. -'
J iY> J-b ~ "" I"" I)
_lo.'() Al,.,..,,;sl>-.. w
--Pl, ...... -W p~pl. _ 0.., Jf-fJ-a itlfo
~2.S' (",II"a'" Av~
Pttlo 111ft, , CA 943cl~
:Ja ..... IS, 1'1'15
J<.E: Aff~ec.~,,~.-V~vi)"c£ @ If75 51<;,,1Ort!.. A-tx
emr-man:. m~a.lJ
I wovl.,( 1;1<" fa w,.;~ t4;.s Ie *'.--~ /-JVf('" f +Z.r
_ *"he ,,\'o~!--VoM",Ct -I Iv> ~ c.""", Fv;';j ~ c-, tI'(/A!..
Tcw"-'U. ... t 12S~ vlier INc Ji~Cc 11'14. 1. e~jol ,
' • .is ""~"'''~y~o&{. :r $ofr<.c-ty.~. tn;)",I' (:<ffr.cc>l<~·..,.
_ -f;,,,. .fI.(. Vav'd"',z pA; lOt,. c..."""M aJi,;,.,., e" ..... -f" ~ rc<
"-..-"",-,o .. a'-'£ t, •. .u,,-...... #...._ 10-(. :I-v>NkyJ~ ~+-
_ ci't~ "'''''~J .'" J'fh-j;,,,..f twe. ,,1.10 ".c. Mr;~ sl>.-,+
_G>-fla~tL ...,-.-1-.. k l.Si'-l-of'lrct.
. -
January 17. I~S
).Is. Usa Grru. Zor.iJ,ll.~
I'Ianning Depemnen< C-.,. of Palo AIul
250 H.millO<l Ave, Palo Alto. Co 94301
R<: Applicatio, for Variance. 147S Stanford Ave.. Palo lW>
Side setbacl relieye..
lomes Sali""'"
S50 ChilD.IiS Or
Palo Alto. Co. ~4306
.-
","0:;;''10''::-'':.':''.-:'.-~~:i~
~ ... ""'li:)' ~.r~"tf' .. 'YWt.i.
~ 2.S It se~k: along Stanford ."'v=. ,ombined ,,'iLh anomer slde iUld tfle froot setbacks..
rCfrescut azJ e.tttaonflllary hardship for anybody .... bo would" need to develop chis property_ Tht
POIen6al house. squeezed into 9JC1I a EWI'OW envelope:. wowd be not only very dlfikuh to propcdy
desigJl. but.w.o would be "ery uocomfortabfc: 10 live in and "'cry llllpleasanl: 10 Iook at.
l.am also OCCiSionally zvo1ved .. rlcb a,e c:OOSU'\JCtion of new bOIIles... And I know CoDegc: Terra.x
area very ..... en. IE is weI)' unfortunate.. that some of the members of!his OO"gb oorhood always tale
_ sue. I negative approac:k w any ~mpl EO buile' new homes ill !he area.
UsmJ1y .. t:ixR objo:6oDs ~ DOt suh$tantiaLed ",3m &r1yeTear n:ason. ~ il is. mctiViUed
b,y poIitiC:<aJ IfiPUations or by the des~ 10 resist k; !he !latWilf prog..1:SS i!.Dd 10 the cban,ge& i:J the
_ ...nti<s. in !he I>ousinll iDdustry. and in !he modem r.quiremeOlS for Il>e eomfotl of !he
singk &miIy home.
II is my stroog opInion, thaf: 1he desig.'\. proposed by Mr. Migdti,. f'l'!presenfS the best posswre
house to be builJ "" !his par<Jcular 10<. Th' &sign for <be prope1rJ in 'I""lticn is properly
cooslderiag !he Sp""" between <be nul <loot how< and this-one and allows suffici<nI "ack yan!
spece. The ~ side sedtact: aIcng St-mfonf .'venue wiD DOl. 'have any pmccic-"a! neguIve
impact. From lb. _ !he futur< bouse will be "'p"",ed by the ""de strip o{..n tmbes a;;d
tza:s.. The desiga. would anaw 10 1oca1e a carage on the Columbia Srr. side, "",hick wtlI take
away ,acy potential obsttuctiOD Eo the Stanford Ave. L.tffIc.
I am IOD)' .lb<ll: I can not take [J)e lime off work IV be prese!\t at I1\.i: pubDc:: bearing and £0
pe!>O<lally <xp<ess my opinion. So. would you please, ,.;cop< <hi< lett .. as my fuD support fcr
me IeqUe5IZd Vari:mr:~
-? -_ ..
JtslIWJT71!. 1995
Jh. Ur4 G,~re
Zofting AtfmjnjstTalor
1'/aNring lkpGrtme1Sl
CiS] tJf 1'1110 Abo
lkar M .. G,ore:
As. Mr. M"lfil4rs ~ig1i!xJr. I .. owld IiU 10 ~i<. JIO" tMt lfolly IWhmand the frartlslUp of
the thsig1Wl, the decorr1y looking anJ comfortable """" D. 1M lot. whicA" restricle4wiI~ 1M
25ft. sith Hd>acl: .
My MIISt u lCc"led >try <lest 10 Mr. Migtfal". ""-1.s.jW1.1y tfa "'" ... "'" 10 .« C ""''''w vSry
locIdn.g home built so close 10 my 1wi&s~.
Mr. Mig4a1 {or.ld Aave spliJ his property into SIX (!) aisring lois. ",hid co:t.1d Itav~ 'lie" lIIt"il
fMa ~~ lni?re relf.'llTamg fvwncic.!Jy for him. Ho.,.,tver, bring • responsible membe, of PQlo
Alto <omnumiry. M we'" the D:ller way and 7q>lLlctd SIX smalilotJ wich THJI.££ bigger onu.
H~ c1.so sTwlJld be cOnImt!n4ed .for his pli-.JIS not f.C umaru1l CII uisfinr o14u "'.o~ or; 1M
property. .. lrklt "'" • "'"que charockr, &ur ram.T 10 save anJ T<finis~ it; ,,,,iI for working
t1n1IlNI t1tis ""WH. ",Iu1. tksigning 1M DIM' ""-""XI 10 it.
As "",.blow, we .. /ready 1w>. quit< _few ",,-, .. rim, SttD'/orti A.",,,,,.. ,,"ud do IIDI comply
wirk the 25ft. setf>GcA:. N~ of os i. the lU!iglrborlwod <CUI say, r1wt it creore, OOJ problem 01
G1t
1 d "'" 10 • pie=. 01'1""'" M,. M'l[ftfar ... "rlanc. opplkDtiofL LocOling the fo"'T< /wme or
tk rt!lfIlUkd lJft. .jiTstjloor, and 11ft. -stcoNlflo« ..,tbod wo.ldlWlbt
~ow 10 the ndghborMod tzl G1t But. badly !co1i.g. /ong ,,04 ",,"ow MII#
tkj'Jlirel, would.
Pt'teT \riD:iIL
2140 Bo"do'. So.
1'.10 Alto, C4 94306
January 17. 199$
Zoning Mminislralor
f'Iarring Oepa_ CiIy 01 Palo Ano.
250 Hamillon A"Ie, Palo AlIo, CA 94301
...
%ina Kaganovich
CoIdwel Banker. Fo. & Carscadon
Palo AlIa, CA 9<1301
During !he last S6Van rears I worf<ed as a Realtor in our downlown Palo A.'1O offICe. 90% oJ my work
Is i'I Palo Alto area. I know Palo AIlo housing, and especially College Terrace, veri wePe IIOOl< an
&X!ta lime 10 study an apprlCatlon lor \he valiance al1475 Stat>lor<l Ave. I reviewed \he dfawing5
and cliscussed with Mr. Tay'"" and wil!1"~. Migdallhe d1tferenl opllons lor !he house ",,1his Jot
t is my SL-or.g benel II1a! !he proposed design is ihe best lor ;his 101 and most sunable lor Ihe
neighboll1ood. The design 01 !he house is Mlr compalible wilh two neighb0<in9 homes of cape Cod
sryte. WI1hOO! any reser181ion I soppof1. Mr. Taylor"s apprlCation.
I fully agree wilh !he apprICan'ihal 25 II. se!back along S1anford Ave. side 01 his 101 would ,"'pose
an extraormo"'!aty hardship on Mr~ Taytor .. Who, narurany. war.ts 10 build comfortable home lor his
family. Without tlis variance, Ihe house w;! have 10 fit inlo!he long and narrow (19 It. wide) strip.
The house woutd be ~ from outside and uncomfortabfe i"lside. • would lOok. like a raiTroad'
ear.
t.<>tTege Terrace has pleroly 01 \hose narrow and Jon;; homes, whlc/1 were buih 40 10 60 years ago.
Sooner or tal ... \hose houses are _fined 10 go and 10 be replaced by wider and more comlortable
homes. This type d cl1anqes lire noI'lCeable ali ovor Palo Ana and especially in !he Cotl.S. Terrace.
This is a pos;:ive deve!opmenl, whk:h should be only strongly suppof1.ed. long time ago, wh&ll lois
.... re d • haf an.ae size or I>i~er. such wide se:bad<s were acceptable. Those days, however,
are all in 1ha past UosI 0I1'oe ne .. lois in Palo Alto are now 6000 Of 7000 sq.k. in size
Bringi"9 !he IufiJre house c:Ios8 r 10 Stank",j Ave. will not be destructive. House will be wen hidOe n
behind Ihid< lne d bushes and numerous tan trees. Stanford Ave. already has QUi!e a few homes,
encroaching i'l1I> "" 25 It selbad<_ None 0I1hose horne is neganvory aneeted by being doser 10
S\znlo!Il Avenue. No< .... 'e is any negaU," .Meet on \he nei\lntomood Of on !he value oIlhose
proper!l<!s.
r would like '" use lhis oppot1i>nity 10 menfion fhat I personany know quP-e a Ie., new homes buill by
Marl< Migdal in !he Say i'Jea. All!",. hornes are always built with 1ha l",jgh QuaTIty and a'Nays 1001<
~.ry nice. He a.'ways Iries 10 malcl1l1is homes 10 !he sryte 01"'" neighborhood, while paying great
anenlion 10 !he comfort d .. ' ilerio< design.
r stroogly support this varia""" request an~ .. ish 10 Mr. T aylo< and 10 1-". Migdal
success wf1h this projecl
rr.an~ you very much.
Truly Z. KagaroO\'ich.
-.-'
' .. ,. .. ','
January 23, 1995
Mr. Ken Sduibet. Director
Ms. Us. Grote, Zoning Admlnistralor
Deparlmenl oE Planning" Community Environment
City oE Palo Alto
Re: Application for Variance at 1475 Stanford Ave., hlo Alto
Dear Mr. Scheiber.
Dear Ms. Grote:
. \.
, .: ... , . '~
1 am a colleague oE Mrs. 2. lCaganovir.1l, who was present .t the public hearing foe
:his applka!ion last week II the dty.1 have had all opportunity 10 review the issues
raised during lhe m""ling rel.tive 10 ill. application.
Althoogh my profession Is related 10 Ille management oE. real .stale oIT",., I feel I
rou-s! comment regarding the concerns raised .11 the meeting.
It would aW"ar ill., l1te objections raised by the neigl1bo<s didn't reany deal with
I1te q "es!ion oE the va..-iaoco. T11eir objections seemed 10 be directed 10 the usual
concerns .that most have regar-dL.,g change. or more irnpocta. .... lly. Lt..e su'bdlvision
process. There were comments reg.ramg density, traW"" noise level, upkeep of the
property and ·spec'" home invasion. None oE these issu .. addressed the question or
variance. .
The property consists or tru....leg.nJ subdivided parcels whlclt will be buill on. The
objections sited above .rrJght have been r-elevanl before the subdivision was
appcoved -not now. .
As to the variance. one Co2 n readJ1y observe by a simple lot review fha t the
pla<:ement or the home on the lot dict.!es thai the 28 it wide home is beller
proportionally 10 the lot t."an the 19 ft. wide home. A wider home on l1te lot would
be more aesthetic 2nd mudt more pleasant in appearance. Also, it would ailow for a
better landscaping plan between the subject home and tl1e 11ou5O next door. Fur!her,
it would be • mudt more comfortable home 10< ils OWl's.
It's inconceivable 10 me that !he u,iance would be a disadvantage 10 anyone. As a
matter or fact, several neighbors sUppo<!ed l1te plan. I a.1< thaI you evalu.te the
perlinen! issues in Uus maUer, with the!-.ope that you will approve ille requested
variance.
Sin.ce~. , } /) ~b-r't<"~A-~
David Reese
255 Hamil10n Ave.
P.lo All<>
,
ATTACHMENT 8
Additional letters In opposition
•
, .. --.
The PI&ruIlng Ccmmi .. ion
City 0{ hJo AlII>
2SO Hamilton A ve""e
hloAlto, CA 94301
~(16i111J. d#r.t
:025 C«-n,5ttrrt
~AIU, CoIiftmc" W06
((JJ}857--4S41
Dear PI&ruIlng Commissio~rs:
"-,.,; .~). q.-i":,o«,_
A. YOOl may be aware, I 1m appealing Ihe decision of Ihe Zoning
AdmirJs!rol'" to (cc>nditionaUy) IpprO'. VariAnc. 94-V·1!!. The conditional
IpproVaJ granls developer M. Migdal the right 10 build • new house at 1475 Stanford
A,-m"e with .. por<h at 16 f..,1 rn the wall of the house ar 21 feet from the Slar>Jord
A venue properly line where .. setback of 25 IHI is o!berwise required.
The decision of the Zoning Adminislrator is obviously • compromise
betw .... the original application. which ~ .. porch .16 reet rn wan .t 11 (ee~
and Ihe conlenlion of over 60 conege Terrace residents that thls developer does not
qualify for • variance for e<>llSlruction within the norma/ setbad. I do not feel that
the city slwuld compromise ils building standards for !his (or any other) developer
ani ... Ihen is .. «>mpelling reason to do so.
Confra!)' 10 lppticanl Migdal's leiter 01 Feb. 13 to \he Planning Commission.
\he opponents of this variance IppliClltioll h ••• provided delailed. ug""""'1s
liTtelly relaled 10 the variance application. The .. argwncnls ",ere provided both in
leiters llD.d la oral commun;calioil at the pablic hearing. S"pporllng
documentation has .Iso been provided. J "ill not restale \hose IU'gumenls in this
leiter; inslead, J urge you to review the file, indading my letter of Jan. 18 10 Usa
Grot •.
Migdal is Ittempting 10 use Ihe nriance process for the sole purpose 01 reol
eslale speculation. H. continues '" threalm \he a>mmunil)' with an 'ugly 'railroad
car" looking house" if he is not granted a varian« '" build w1uo1 he wants. Perhaps
\he ftanning Commission shaald ask this developer why he f",,1s he is incapable of
building an attractive smallllouse '" cottage within code (as many others J..ave done
over Ihe yelU'5 in eonege Terrace). ()( (OUtse, the reason is strictly financial
Mr. Migdal continu.s 10 ..... rt that the .. are '23 homes on Stanford Ave,
botIt old and new ones, whlcl>. encroach .. ,,10 \he required 25-fool setback.' Plea ..
refer 10 the documentation in my IeIler 01 Jan. is lor IN, facls.
It would benefit the Ftannin& Commissionen if they could visit the affected
..... 10 lind OIlt for themselves what the concerns of Ihe College Terrace residenls
are. As it turns ou~ this Sunday, April 23rd, is • particular!)' appropriate lime as our
garden II 2Ol5 Columbia Street, wh.id. adjoins 1475 Stanford Aven ... , is "open 10
.. ~ ,enclosed ayer). Thus members of the i'!aMin& Commi .. ion will have the
-~ 10 "" • property that will be featured in • till tiona! magarlne. IS weD IS
one that falls _what short 01 ~ standards. Of ~0Ill'W. Ihose commissioners
... ho ha". o(hu time commitments (or are not interested in 'ard .... ) will vis;! the ,
o/lc at their CODvenience,
"
, .. :!
eo.lR *r"fPII ,,.,1si1101
• .1m 9-"* C}IIidm 1" ....
l ,,' IIIIIf «XJf,jIs
". '.-.:..-~ :;.l
My wIFE A-Nl> r H/Jvf LII/El> ON Ct:>L ukBf/J ST. Fe!?.
ovM 3S YPAAS /rNP R~J$E.r> It FJ!J.J-1ll-y of Tffll.E.E.
111 TTEN b E. ~ THE MEt: TJlvC. 1M J/Po? If" S A JJ D
V()/c€.t> My ,,'Po5ITl"Hl ANt> IOl.D HI? fllr:;.l>~L
T~ M~kE THE TOTIH-PRof'E.!?'Y/ 150' WIDE} /Nlo
71.U675"' L# TS J TE4fC. P"'....,JJ THE EXIS Juvc:.. ileNE
/t/JI> f'<T t.tf> TW() M,E H6MES If>JD HE. <! .. «c..t>
fADt=,T
M~kE ItS }it«C.H F:I 42' fiyp NoT [)ISTRe>, t:itlj("
Ncltt:.1f8.:;/{-HHt> WITh THff II"D~ -ht>:F-. ifE': PLANNES
To 1'" T {(',
WE W~N T Tne ';l.S FT. 5IET 8~ck. (IN S:TI1N~I?D
!J.VE. T.:> BE. cr./F ...... cco,
WE fLAN To /r TTiSNt> TilE IL/;NNI V/f-(!DkJ1 •• 1IV AlII.:U 'Tlt.
/l1J~ e. ""elL l1ef!.TJN6-f.1~y Ir!.!t IS''' S
VlE/ij TI< I.{ ly 'Ie,,/{ '0,
.. -"'~-.,
,--,..
--.--. .
~ I~ 1'11'}-
J;J----. ~ ~ ~~~
..
-------"--
.... _-17 Arrn 199,
Mr. ViCt~ OjWll1. Ho~orabr.e ChaIrm3t1 of t.~1C' Pia.."lning Commission
T.o.ny Svcns.soo
VaIlanc.c: appticatio1l. 9+¥·iS on. 14}S 5ta...,['.)rd Avt.'lu~
Mt Jos.eph Simitian and' other hOoQorabl~ ~uncil merobc.n
--
I have become awatt of ~ .itu;;cioo in our O;:rIeg~ Tttnct' ndghborbood wnich 1
beY~e oe:ds some imme& au ant'nrioc; t-y the uty.
A ckv.:lopa D,a. .. n&!'d Migdaf is inempci!1g to cu-':l.lm"\'1f'n1 the zo.~i..'lg :egu!arioos in:a
"SF« housr-proje...."1 on 1,(75 Sunf.:m! Avc:nue. This de .. d"o~ is a:ski.ng foc a 'n!l
;;anc.e to ~uild a two-~c:>q holJSC eleven feet &om me property line. The Donnal set
t:, ac:c.: req llittrnc.c.:S are 25 ko:(.
Th~ zonIng :ldmmistntO{ has t;Ondition.any .arrrm·e-d;, four-foot intrusion "intO the
se!~a:.:k. The:: 4cvdoper is appea1;r.g L\i.o; deci~on. chim'ing t},.lt !n oder to 'build an
atua..--ti\'C bouse,. he ann31: abide by the norma! sctl-:;..,-"k.
As a r!O~ny oa'Iler in CcllegeTerr:Kt'.1 <~"uinf'y agree 1hz: firing ur~ o.r even
.rephcing.. SOlt!~ of our old propc:r~s lw. i. hl~h prw.uy aT,d.l enc,ou!'lge a!i su~
code.a'VOr~ _hech.:r for proSt. or ilOL ~'e~r. I betievc C''iually strongTy that C%is:t
in@: bullding .itanaatdli be main~n<,d and !bat the5>e' a:< OO! COCl rromis.e-,c in OtH"
n«ighho-rhood, nc.it..~u foe lM g}ce of pure profir.-zs 1IeeIn!" the (;~ ~nor for
coo\"eIlie.o.cc..
P1c:asc mtJ'dorc, make SUjC di2t t.~ bUildin~ sund".ards :l!C mainuin,ed in t...'Us and
future c:a;s.« In CaBegc Terrace an.:! ~r SC'9i·htte in our Ctty. Thank you!
T.on J Svensson
College Terrace
Property o..ner
~s. Our hou~ .1 Vtcrorian "f-;u:i1t in I )'OS. _as one 0: cllc Drst b()u~s in Col'lt'ge
Terr:i.:.e. We b<rog~t it from ~ onginal o ..... ·ne{s ~i1y in 1990-ic 0I.he.r .... "orJ~
.... e are L,t.,e second o.·n~r" Thol.lgh we are Dot 6nUhed~ we ha'!C: tri.ed to maill~n
bodt the interior ar.d tne aur~ deSigns ~ or~ na! .as pOSJl:bic.. abiding by anl.OO
ing teg.'.J!acions in the (.;on!inuous) pro..:C'S5. So s..'wcld everybody e1se.
t<\.G!lOfl
" "
•
k t....;. ~"'-"
Ho .. ..,,,..~ ~ r \.-.. ~ l.."
6~ .. {. ~ ... l. ~,
~~ ~ ...... ~ ..... ~~ \!OJ-"c...t<G<', \-{M ~L~Av.
»~ 1-4. ~-.?"£.
re-o .... f""" ~ .,J.!,...,.. ~
l"¢:,,,~k~ tv ~(""C>~
~~ f~ t/;Je. ~e e..Q.t .....
ti 1 ~f~ IJQ.~\HJ ~ Stl .... ..e. 0(
~e ~i:!...~a.-e
.,......., ""t g e: (A...i,.., &-fJ
l-o s e.,. " ;s ; .,. e
f
"
:1
'j
'~ ~i
I
I
--------.---
-L
-
•
(J) --12/1 .ov,'o'e
t'~'" K '':1 ~~ e
Rel"'''NJ -k.;ff-'
I' <U-' e <2.A> cI
t::;';J J. U?/.pc} ~.4.,
•
, f
\
i· .-.; II!:
-~-
l
I
-Of. t i:I;
-_.-.. --.--•... ,,-~ ... ~ .. -.-.. ---
7XiC-I<' ; .fa ~f?
(t'-/C) ~,/
;v,</e (..1' ~ 1 ~-'c;
6C>(~t; eF
~~v/d",
e.:: rf' f"-t:e /-/ I
So~vd Q.,,-,c/
y/suo e .eQ~,e.·t
t'elX/.p~ ,U
~TClp we> ea-?4f'< __
a.".o' ,,!-kp ;c
1'.A4J/ e-.ej
r
I
I
\
\
\ ,c --.
\ t c.\·
.--
(~) 7( /6 ~'W.e'C4.4~ ~ J/QA2.'q.vq p'-U ~ ~//Rc1~~
/t.¥ ~I ~ I/-p h'",I-P lVia 6"e &,c-Q I~
/7'7" ./,."" ~ $.·de..,..W.;er-CUJd ..78',,· /~-~ .
~ f.f.7~ k..ve. rl /1., s-4> .. e /.
,
T~.Q {\"<-~, ! Lc..~t:,
A ,
\ ' ,
( r"-"
L ~~l
"'r.. .... >i'l ... "e
U· 5' s' \'2: IS'
.3S'1" (4-)
Re\u~'~" 1I"", C)
1475 Stanford Ayenue (94-V-lS)
Letters received at or after the Planning
Commission meeting of 4126195.
. .•. :
, ,-<-0
'-,,,'-': o ••• -.: , i . _',r:. ____ "
f..,J. ,J: fI"<r c..~
.J:. 1/';''' 1'15"
. Apri IS. 1995
P!olMing Commission
City 0( Palo Mo
City Council
City 0( Palo Al!o
Ms. lisa Grote, Zoning Mlnims!!'.!or
City oK Palo Mo
Dear Ms Grote, Plaming CommiSsioners and City CooociI Members:
The undersigned residents of College Terrace oppose !he ad<frtional variar>ee
requested by Leon Taylor and Marl< M"Jgdal for 1475 College Avenue. We would
arso bl<e 10 go on record as Clj)9OSing !he .,itial4 fOot ~ariance granted these
developers under an earr",r ",quest .
.' .,
,;"0
.... \ -
. ~.--\ i
,.).1,,,, &.0.-4-"'" lA. 1YY~
21$4 ili}hp/fULf~3J~
I a i) t;/kJ~/f.;L. 'i"'lJO (;
'56. €..otic,... (.. "1"'100
. -',
.0 ~'
' ..
Planning CommIssion
Cily of Palo Nio
Cily Courocl
City of Palo AlIo
,.,-
Ms. lisa Grote, Zoning Administrato<
. Cily of Palo AlIo
.. ~ . -;. '.
Dear Ms Grote, P1anning Commissioners and Cily Coonci! Members:
The undefsigned residents of Collega Terrace oppose the adCrtionar variance
requested by leon Taylor and Marl< M'Jgdallor 1475 College Ave""". We woold
a!so like 10 go on reco<d as opposing the "i~aI4 foot variance granted l11ese
developers under an earlier request.
The developers were wea aware of the setbacl< req"iremenls when they
purchased Ihls P'operty and wile., they requested redrawing the Io! fines 10
be!le<<!e',elop the property. No varianr..es should be granted tor Ihls property
4-i :. -'is
'\ ,-~'. ~;:.,.;,"
-,'. '
..-';,.. ~": -." -
PlaMing Commissio.,
City of Palo Mo
Cily CooociI
Ci!y of Palo Mo
Ms. Usa GroIe, Zoning Adminislr!;tor
City of Palo Mo
.. --,
Dea, Ms Grote, Planning Comm1ssior",rs arod Cit'! Cooflci! Memllers:
The ",*,rsigned residents of College Terrace oppose !he additional variance
requested by leon Taylor and Mark Migdal for 1475 College Avenue. We wool:!
-also like I'l go 0<\ re<Xlfd 8$ opposing !he ",~JaI4 foot variance granted!hese
<fevelopers U<lder an ean"" request
The developers. were weD aware of ll'.e s.ettlacJc requirements when ~ey
purchased lhis property and when !hey requested red<awlng \t1e 101 nnes I<>
bet:erdevelop It", property. No variances shoold be granted "" !his property.
Sincerely: Lt-\ t
~:A\E-.
(hliw/i/./d"4Ir;kA -;:f.-oS A".v6'~M1<5 /(,J,~/f-c 11.,;:.. .//(,1,/;,-ri)J . J ' f ~ -I ~ ~ i2.!.C1\$,? l(.!>l (~ ~ q{,c,,,,; l:J5 ~~11 (1)\ he-,,-"n".-... ;,;. \) ",",.,!--4 .,j.1 ;<.
M-td.~..e:.. QLf~i£tAi7.. ;d!/J> 2(;1'<21;..,,:";t, '1J.'~!rS
~~~~~~~~:':;:::...J~8-::;:Y~fXlED· -> J-32"~ G:.u.."""61.~ ,1/ ... fiS
~~&/I~h&t/~.~ 5..)6' 4;,(,"'''(71:' <I//6/7[
.57bYl:: "1Wp lINN It~lltf.j_ it,!!of LqK.t;"L.-C "YL= q /!6/15
~;"' . ./,:. Un fiiHMrI ..I, .. c __
1/'7 U k.Yl rt,.r~J.. .ft-e ~/{l1't~
;-IyO 1j"':M':} ~ r~
ApnI 1S, 1995
Planning Commission
~ of Palo Alto
City eooo.:l
City of Palo Mo
Msc Usa Grote, Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
Dear Ms Grote, P'.anrJng Commissioners and City Council Members:
The undersIgned residents ofColJege Terrace oppose!t'.e additionai variance
requested by le;)ll Taylor and Mark Mtgdal fa< 1475 CoI'Iege Avenuec We would
also 6ke to go on record as opposing \he in~i.t 4 foot variance granled Ihese
deve1cpers "flder an earfier requesl_
The devek>pers were weI aware of lIle setback requiremer~s when lhey
purchased this property and when !hey requested redrawina !he 101 ~nes 10
better develop lIle property _ No variances should be granled fo< !his property.
Sincerely:
• , ~ , ..... I
_' ,J -~.., -.... -.....,. .: 1-:......~\ .... ·..--2 1 .L'~
I\!t(~ \~l~ri .
-;, ]~ f' (,)' 0 c·c,·s }, 1-:
().r; I (6 1!iC}L-A~
~~&'S 0~1,~ ':;;/
",a~-P-n ,..,!{.,? [7-0
.' ...... -
~lS.1995
Planning Commission
City ol Palo AlIo
City Council
City ol Palo AIle
Ms. lisa Grote. Zoning Administrator
City ol Palo AIle
r' .~ ~ _
" .<~-.. '
Dear Ms Grole. Planning Commissioners and City Ceuncl Members:
The undersigned residents ol College Terrace oppose the adcfdiona! valiance
requested by leon Taylo< and Marlt M"tg<Ial for 1475 College Avenue. We would
also 5~e 10 go on record as opposing !he inRial4 foot variance granted!hese
developers under an eartiet' request.
The developer.; were wea aware of !he sethacl< requirements when they
purchased !his prope,t)' and when the)i requested redrawing the 101 f<nes 10
beller develop !he property. No variances should be granted for this property.
Sincerely: Y -I [ -'t 5
Srq." eof ... ;. ~£.·J\t
Vwv-...J~ u, . .f'C.ei E.A.li~, O!lJr C<Jlv/;;{~' .'\. ff.
;g~~~~::S~~\"'~f't.i~~~ z..t$O '30<-<.) cl. c,~ sf-
Ltu:~ P"p.
~'" l,>uy ~
.-~';:-'
-". . "---~-,(",~--.~.
" .
20 8pril 1995
PIDnnlD1l tommlss\oll
250 Hamilton stH!et ",. .. ~L
Pelll 81te, tR 94301
Dellr Commission Members:
It wos lIerg llisturblng tD leom tIlat Midga', tlle del/eloper, Is
agoin Jrying U tiUUmDent tilg rules Dbout • Derlance 101 1475
Slenfor' RDellue. Pral)obly he wbOlheartedly subsm"es to Ille adllge,
'oothlng lutceeds lill:e success,' to wll. tile two bouses 00 Oberlin for
wbleb be ,,,euBDed OD the tilg lIutllorities aod won. Subselluenlly, we
belle tllese two common-place bouses crowding tbe sidewanc 110
Oberlin.
I. Dlong with mallY lither toOege Terrace residents. lIehemenlly
oppose Migdar. request for panance. No. 94-11-18. Be most beus
been weD ewere o.tbe Size 0' the property WheD lie bougbt II -for
speculaUDD lind profit. II' tours e -so he should halle bad lIis archl
ted dellgn hOUSing thet fits mID tbe IIree, not try til weasel out II
cODtession to tbe ruling. b9 the wellt and foultg reasoning be effers.
Most a. us were attraded to our neighll.lrbood becllose of the
friendly. comfortable, Il8ried bousing styles. let's nolllOow tbese
builders, who do not lilll! in aur neigbbOrhOOd anll hllue DO Joyo1t!l or
interest here, CDlltinDe to poDule the neighborhood in the D8me .,
profit only.
2035 Oberfin st.
1'1110 lUte, tR 94~D6
Phone: 851-1068
Sincerely goun.
-r:ltj 4,,;......,-.
Tibby SimOD (Mrs.)
" . " " .. -~
..
."
,.,x. 21, 19~5
I am wrltina to Dppose 5t~nzly t~~ varIance .pplicatio~ 94-V-J! at
1475 Stanford Ave.
~$ Is • sp&clal and unique nti,hbor~ad and J object strongly to
cuts1de developers .ema.ing i. to c.hange the n.vor of it.
Sincerely yoyxs~
IG1S Stanford Ave.
.. Palo Alto 94.306 RECHV"",
mHB95
0.,.".."" . .-,-.
~t::.,.,._-_
4-21·56
'rhe P1annIng Commls,ion
City of Palo Alto
25(j Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA ~l
D&ar Planning CommiBBlon:
I previo1lBl,. wrote a let~r to the z"llln,g Admini$trator Bupp<>rting Mark
Misda1'. applkatNtl b, a varlan<:e to COll8truct " fleW bouse at 1<175 StMfon!
Avellue within the 2!>-foot eetba.:li: OIl Stanford A .. enue. Howe...,r, after talkIng
with my CoU. Terr:ace neighbor,;, I am \nON fultyawa.>-e of tr.e is.u.s involved
and I am now opposed to hi. applicatlon.
SlDCerely. .
J!~/fofi) 21~H~M£t
Palo Alto, CA 94306
l"laIDng Coomisaion
2SI)~A"",
Plio All<>. c.. 94301
April21,19'lS R£{'F."'~;
APkHl99S
Ot=.". __ -. co'.: .. ~i;i.IJ.'v;.-..:ll....:
PIannin8 CommissioD
250 HamIlton Ave.
Polo AlW. C .. 9430]
To P!onnlng Commtssioo"
RECF·lv,;;n
April 21, 1995
In ,eIei eooe 10 i request IOc • set~ variaooe II! !4 75 Stanford Ave. (No. 94-V-18), .....
ISo not beIi ... 1hat even I (fuoI variaooe sboWd be granted in thiI sltua6on. The variance
is 00110 acrommodat. any unique building design bL~ !imply 10 incmose !he square _
fuoIqe. 1hus pro/iIlDaI]!in. By granting • varien<:e 10 thiI yw "ill be conceding that !he
2S fuoI set back is ~ngless.
Mike and Cindy Meloy
1612 California Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94J06
494-J882
•
PJaMi"9 Comm isSi(>n
~50 Hem i/ton Aven<Je
PaTo Ano, Cali10mia 94301
To: PJanning Commission
Ra., Variance No. 94-V-1S. 1475 Slanlo<d Aveoue
We stroog/, 0990Se the g<anting 01 any variance in this case.
If there Is an] meaning IV z!)(Iing faws; ~ is preC;S<lly 10 lX.vent (he
deSlf1>Ct1on I:Jf neighborllooCs by e.cessive deveJopmelll.
We \If"e you 10 insiS! thaI OevefQge(s and reslOeNs bund ,., fun
compnance with city ;:ooins laws.
fJq~
....hQOIA-~
'Whit Heaton
Sally Haaton
2345 BowOoin Street
Palo Alto, Cari10l'nTa 94306
April 23, 1995
.. :-.
Avram B. Meyers
2350 ComelI Street
Palo AlIo. California 94306
J Pl~ULWJ&-lc.MlJlgi~
a.>-> ZO!\ing Administrator
;-... -
.". -~
Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo AIIo, Ca. 94301
2-£: "'t;>e",e .,.. ... t\-F.\~'-E. i ~4tS" Sk,,\o£2.ci t..v
$irfMadam
As a College Terrace property owner I wOuld like 10 add my support
10 Mr. Migdars requesl lor a Iront setback variaoce lor the followirlQ
reasons:
a) Grantlog !he variance win enable construcfioo of a conformlng
house in terms of design. fooIprinl and size. No injury or
delrimenl ¥1m accrue to acfj3cenl or nearby proper1ies.
Conversely, denying the variance will rorce Mr. Migdal !o bu~d an
underutifized and iI1-designed slrUcture. It seems to me thaI a
poDcy of "best use" provides the most rational approach in this
case.
b) The owners (curr&lll and future), the 101, the neighborhood
aoo ultimately the city itself will benefit from the granting of
this variance. Denying the variance does not benefit anyone.
c) Since there are many existing homes along Stanford A venue which
encroach into the setback" granting the variance will not
estab~sh a precedent IIQ( win it creale a unique silLiatioo.
Sincerely yoyrs.
6~ t~~{tv'-
April 25. 1995
Mr. VICIDr 0jaI<ian
Department ol Planning '"
142SSianfo<d Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Commtmity Env;,.onmenf
ety of Palo Alto
2SO Hamilton Ave.
P.O. Bcx 10250
Palo AltO, CA 94303
Fax -115.329.2240
Dear Mr. qaldan.
116 Maple St.
Conway, MA 01341
This Iettrr Is rogarding Varim« Appliation No. H-V·l8: 1475 Stanford Ave.
I WOI1't be able to make !he meeting tomorrow nigh! when !he Planning
Commisskm reviewslhe appeals to the varuna. granted 10 my nelghbo<, Mark
MlgcW.I om in amlact with neigfIbors Robin Clark and Kathy Durltam and
couldn't agree more with !he IetteTs !hey sul>Iritted Ie Lisa Grote in opposition to
Migdal', p!ans.
rd like 10 .dd thai Migdal simplifies the issue by focusing on !he hardship he
will face if fomod Ie build • house Ies!; 1fw1 twenty feet wide. Construction ol ~
bouse within the 2>foot setbacI<. as he proposes. would have a far-reachi."8
impact on neighborhood safety, tJaffic.. appeuance, and zonlI'.g precedent
In addition, his reSponse 10 those who question his claim of "hardship' as
justifiablE for a variance is 10 threaren. 1 quote from a Ietrer signed by Leon
Taylor ancl Mark Migdal. dated February 13, 1995, addressed to Ms. Lisa GroIe:
w. wan! 10 m.o.ke the foIiowlng point very de.,. 10 the
Plonnlng Commission and members of the Ci-ty Co-"nci!:
By der,ylng Ihls varlan!% no good will come 10 any neighbo<;
L'\d the neighborhood will have 10 live with an ugly "railroad
car" Ioo'<lnghouse foe many yean 10 come."
I wO\ll4like 10 ad<i that Migdal'. pions 10 I>uild two addi60nal hou.es on the
properly once known as 1415 Stanlorcl Avenue is rounter 10 policy establislted in
the aty'. ComprehensiVl! Fla.." as Illndersrand it. it states. "Protect ind ~
those qualities which make Palo Allo', nelghbomoods especially des;""ble.· and
10 "Use the Zorung OrdlnAl'>Cr, <>«her codes, .nd spedfk pIa.. ... 10 maintain high
qualily ~. There are .. rnomber of voh:able nelghbornoo<l quaIiiles
tt-.. ! havo been ignored wit!! Ih!s planned development.
rile Planning Commission is fiI<:e& with the challenge of balancing the <ighls of.
P!operly owner and the righls of. community 10 shape its neighborhoods,
College Terrace is .. unique, v>.ried. and valuable neighbodlood and 5hould be
consid"'l'd .. strength of this char.ging community,
Sfr.cerely.
Apri 26, 1995
Piarmilll Coll1ll1issioQ
Oty of Palo Alto
C"Ity COlUlcil
City of Palo Alto
Dear members of the planning commission &. city "OUlld!:
& a long time home OMler living in College Terrace I'd like to ~PP<>fl Mr. Migdal in his
appeal 10 the plam>iDg commission.
III my opinion, Palo Alto zoning rules are intended to benefit the city citizens. In this case,
(orcing Mr. Migdal to design and build. 20'.wide house on I normal 50' by 125' lot d=s
nO! seem 10 serve the intended purpose.
I am confident that with the experience the planning commission has dealing with suck
cases, j[ will be possible to come up ",ith a reasonable V2riance to resolve this situation.
Sincerely,
Zohar &. ltac:b.e1 Loun
2344 Hanover St.
Palo Alto, CA 943{)6.
(.? .. J. of. ,->I~ :.,....;.-..,..,;._
'f 12.1( 1 "';
,'. .
"" ,
0i.-.'.5toa _I>P-
-~~ .. s..u....
..... <.00F0Ik0
O .... A. •• •
'<Jl"-"
Targeled rune: ASAP
A25 ~ ~ $WI.! JiD
hie ",... c.td='Wllll 900S
T~ '.f1J) 611-56'21
)t1aOm-~ (041$} 511-)SIO
Attorney/Secretary: WDR:nae
•• nus TELECOPY TRA1"/SMIS ION WILL ALSO BE MAILED ••
TO: The Honorable V~"'t'" Ojaki. ~.ir A~iENTJO~: BEtTe
City of Palo Alto Plann!ng mmi~5ton
FROM: \VHli.", D . .Ross. Esqu,,,
OATE: April 26, 1995
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES:
TEl.ECOPY PHONE NUMBER;
I {!cci<ldinS Cov« Lett"r}
(4 5) 329·224{}
CONFIRMATION PHONE NUMBER: -t~------------
CONFIRMED BY:
OPERATOR NAME: No
IF ALL PAGES NOT REC£I\ , lLE.ASt CAY, (213) 191·15'2
MESSAGE:
filII .... II 1.r.'IlII8 IX., IDt r. UIC OJ 1
., Ml ConA'. ll11Ui11All~ ,~t It NMLI
"' .. 1CIiIll UW. IF TV! IIL1IDEI flI TIll. lIE
_ IIIQD1 Ia1IPCa'SllU fal IE.LrYDUI' liE
IInlflD tlU Ilif •• '*"IIATlIIr, .~mliul'!
"'11(". IJI YCIJ MljIf IRfIVO tltl ~
~. Ale .,... 1)1( 011151..-.K.Io(;l
IIIYICI. lMiiC ftILI.
J.r~iDOM. CI: Elm" YO \MIOI n II ~ •
• tcltPJDEJn'I,IU. AIC ~r ~ 'J~ UM;a:
%1 ICJl' ,. llrrolJUl IRIP'lM. CI 9£ fWLDnI
TCI till: lin!:.., IICLPIIIf7. YaI AU RIll"
CII aft)1IG; 01 TlUI CQifU'ICATlOf I'S mInt.'
flew [I iDOl .. PUJ\tE 101' LN us IICIU IAnu 11' us I' i"lf ~ ~u. YlA tIlE: •• S. ~M.
p.&M'.~ ..,.,.. Do . ..
~dic 1l AM.ftJ
O"rail .. aer..:.
~=-c.~
~A.Ptp •
.." """""
AprIl 6, 1995
vu 'IEIECOPIER &; 11RST<:USS MAl
[Facslmile No.: (415) 329-22401
lbe Hon"",bl~ V>C!or Ojakian, Chair
IIlId Members of fr.., P\annio8 Commissi 11
Oty 0( Palo Alto
2SO HamiltOll Avenue
p.o. Box 10250
Pili" AltO, Calif«nia 94300
....... Pmtt:
411 $I\c,mM ~ Sulsc 1111
, •• AM, ~ H306i
T~ "i!9 674171
--t'''J "'" ....
... ,.., 1/10
Re: Meeting D.[~: Apr>J 26. 199 ; Agenda !tem Ne>. 3; Appeals
of Zoninll Admini;trator A ""'oJ 0( V"i.nc~ N". 94·V·IS
4 " v
Dcar ChaIr Ojaldal\ an<! M~mbe" o! the ao.ning Commission:
The Ul1deulgned is a r~id.nt and 0 .tt 0( Ibe imprO<'ed real proper!)' bearing
Ill. str •• , address of 2103 Amherst S<reet 'thin the City o! Palo Alto ("CIty") and
ecDege Terrace. This commuckat;oo off. factual and lop! opposition 10 tbe
proposed variance wbicl! is subject to tlte aJs of the February 2, 1995 decision o! 1M
Zonin& Administrator (the "D«ision-, be e yOW' Honor.ble Commission.
Prlo< !O fonnulatil1g Ibis opposition.· Staff Report, consisting o! • rwo-page
Staff lra!lStninai with attached labt~ aM "e<&1 endOSllres. .... as reviewed. FaClUal
assertions set forth in 11>1$ commmiication re 1M [0"')1 o! pe=nal obseruatloos of the
"ndersigned wbich. as & neigbbor, constiru substantial evidence for evaluati08 !he City
S!aff c!atermirlaoon IIlaI a C&logori!:aI 0'0 • D is lppropriate for pu!lJOStS of
compIyinJ with Ihc California EDYironmen Ooa:;1)1 Act (Pub. Resources Code S 21000
tl Wl~ "CEQAj for th. vari= 500gbl b Ill. al'Pli<an~ Mr. Mit" Midgal (the
• The Hooornble VICI(IC Ojalcian. Chair I
and Members c{ the PlannlnS Commiss,
April 26, 1995
Page 2
L
St1MM.UtY OF ARC ENT L-' OPPOSITION
The Dccisio!> canno! be ""slain.1f I
sboald be dollied and the sppeal c( !be
the co 1<>ro the appeal c( !be Applicanl
'don gr ant.~ because:
A.
I, The Dedsion is D« S>JPPO<I. b) kgal!y adeqt;ale findings, .,bkb in Wm,
are :not supported by 5ubst.z.n at tvidence in t!le record;
2. The Applkanr lias nO! sustai d its bo.lrdeo 0( proof with respect 10
panting Cf the valiance; and,
3. ~ project is impmperly tv ,ted under CEQ." as a ca!Caorical
cxemptioa cannot be used ... h n the pcoject is impermissibly segme"ted
and be ... usc here fr..r' is no odic.tion in the record as I~ the basis fo<
the C&tegorica.1 ••• mption.
L
Aj-YSIS
As tile ,-arlance is a decision wbject <> revic ... under Code <>f Civil Proxedure
section 1094.5. it is sUbject 10 Ibe find"mp r quit,mee, lim cornprebensivc1y describe"
In T<>p<Jn£12 As.m. fly a Scenic C<mtmlOUl)l~.. .OU"'l' <1. Los A"gtre.., 11 cal.3d 506 {197.}
fTopa1\!'o"):
• , • [!be decision-malcing must rooder fuldinp .
• ~ra boclo 10 elLlblc!be rues 10 de,ermine wbether
and <lit .. b&l bas1s !bey .boo1 seck re .... ~"'. and In the event
0( review. 10 apprise • ,evie g eoU!1 ol the basis for 1M
board's action.
T~ "'P"Z.11 CaL3d at He..
-.
"
"--':.':'"--,>-'.;-,'.;.
The HOIlOCable YJCtor Ojalcia n. Oak
':00 Membe" 0( the Pia,,~lng Commissi
April 26, 1m
P&&e~
The Topanga coon fJrtMr conclude
Implicit in sectlon l094.S is. .quit.ment Iba! 1M agency
which rendus the cballeOSea ecision muSl set fcnh findings
to bridge lb. lUlaly1Xal lap "11 Ill. raw evidence and
the ultimate decision or order .• _ by focusing ••• llpo!l Ibe
relationshipli between e>iden and findings and between
fiod"lI!gs and ultimate actiOn, Lef.s1atur. SO\lghl to direct
the reviewing <:O'J"'I an"t\tio to llIe .nalytieal route Ibe
admlnistnuve .genG} luvek from .vide~ 10 «OOn In SO
dotng. we -believe tnat tbe I.e s13rurt must liave
contel"!"'!J)Iatc;d tliu the agency Quid reveal t."'lis rOtHe,
TOfX1'Ila. supra. II Cal.3d a, 51S.
The burden of proof I<> satisfy Ibe a ilcab!e standard. for Ill. ,· .. .;uco is
squarely 011 the AppUcanc Gong •. Ci1)I of remonJ. 2$0 C'",V.pp.2d 56&, 574 (I967).
B. Standard For GraNicr A Variance.
The City Ot'wnar.ce autllorWD, the anling c( • variance parallels the provisions
of Government COO. section 6S9()6 mllob li • Ihe pro""",;<>ns 0{ 1M Los Angele. County
Z<>ning Ordinance paralleled ,,'>at sa.'1le sec as is amlyzed by the coon in Topolfga.
Government Co<Ie section 65906 aml tt>mp ble local .gell<)! ordina.'lCe, permit
variances:
Ollly when. because of special clrcumstanc.., applkable to
the prope rty the strict appljca on of !be zoning ordrnacce
deprives such prope'1l' 0( pri ego, enjoyed by other
propeI1)' in the vicini!)' anc! u er idenrieal zonlni
c1assifi<aOOn. This lonSll_ge pbul7.n diG,ritis' beNleen
properti ... flO( Ireatmen! c( subject property'.
~h2racterlstics in the ab-..uact ',anon) contemplate thaI at
best. only a small fraction of yone zone can qualify for a
nrian(:C..
T~ ""pra. 11 CaI.3d at 520.
c Ii • i .
Filst,. the Decision is deficient as it
(ompties wit!!. CEQA. On this basis alone,
leu DO reference to how the: varia.GC"e
;. &ficieot.
•
".
•
" , -
"' "
," " -
.. ' .
. ,." ~
" .-~--...:! :-~~··~::;~_t~~.o.:~.o-_:~_ ,..:...-:.-____ ~ ~,;,'::l==:-"="'-";",
The H()Il()rIbl. \">cIOT Ojaldan. CIIaT'
UId Member> al,h. i'Ia.'Uling Commissa 0
Apr;! 26, 1995
hae4
1_
lbc WdeQ'Jacy of this finding is em "'.sind by lIS conduoloMry !lot.ments, su~h
The lois resulting (rom C al pr~5S impro.ed UPCD 11' ..
_ ~.viou£ lotting panero UId r ooor the lots """'. cOnforming
" wlIb curren! wolng requIre nu. btl! did no! entirely
remove !be pbysical con5tnin from Ibe lots-Agarll,
grantins ~ ,anan« \laSed on ei&! clrcumstan<es !II* ~
based on djspid!!es between 'opetties no( trUtmeru of !he
,ubj.a propcl1/s clJaraClerist in the ''''tra.l.
TOJXl"3I', supra, 11 Cal3d .! 520"
This is especially Ill. ~ whea. as j developed v.fra. the <livi.;o" of the property
into thr •• lois rather than two lois is the to alt of. conscious ecooolllic decision '0)" Ille
Applicant "19 have two roar'f!able propertie ,.cher .~ ... one. Her •• the,. is 00
disparily between this property aneI otlt« p e,tfes suc~ .. to support the finding even
if it ",er. _ <:ooside.red to be condu.iO<'.a rather .han bridging the ana!ytkaJ gap
between the e.m~ ar.d the ~<lsion. fn act,. IllO finding ",.te",eOI> <onceming other
lois fronting on Stanfo<d Avenue Mr., •• " \IIdcin Stret' ... ~d Huvar<! Street is nO(
acC'"r.'e, See, Jll'IuaIY 18, 1'n4 comrounica on 0{ Robin D. 0.,." and Marian
Maddernan ";tII arracllments-Moreover. it simply ;. ~n>uj>pOl'ted by e,'idenc. or .v,.
substantial evid¢nce that. 'typical' lor in L; R 1 Zone is 60 feel ...ooe. For example.
21C13 Ambers! and !be lots 00 Ibat ponioD eoneSe Terrace are 5C Iu, wide.
IXclsioa HDding No. I attemptS 10 s te that there are exceptional or
e<tratl<dinary eircumstafl""! 0( conditions a !icabre to lb. property ~eting ~ City
r.qidrement (or the $aIM because of lor . h and • pwponed (actual comparison ...,:tll
other \oIs frOllting oc Stanford Avenue. E. loyin& tbe standard 0{ review for special or
~ cirCllJl'lStances articulated in ]'; SI<p<a,11I. plight 0( an &ppli<:ant for •
varian<:< must be llu. 10 .particular c:irCU1YlS 5 L'ld coroditions ""d It mllSt be special
0<' UIJique In COD.!n<l ","tIl 1lI., of ether F rt} OWI'itrl '" the =ne di>lri<t. ZGkoss ....
F. City cf SouraJiJo. 28 Cal.App,)d 794. 799 972) rZlake.r.rirm·), A thorough
eJlamination 0( tile record .... 001<1 reveal Ihar he Applk4nl bas no< $ll0lllll tllal • variance
as """template<! has eve, been granted pre ly by the Ciry. Uooer similar
ciT<:umstU«!, the denial ala variance for 0 parcer. 5ubstantiany below minimum lot
s.e req.mement5 .... as upheld, l'EMf MOI1g • C'" "_ Ciry D{ l'adfo; Gro~ 128
C!.1.App.3d 124, 732 (1981~ It is respectfull sugge,ted that i,ven the 'eM ala
regulalOly taking. mat is, "ndue re,trictloo developmenr for • local .s."cy ;. that of
~n}illg an owner cl all economically viable so of it> land \Asiru'-Cily of rlbur,,"-441
US. 255. 260 (1980}] and the consci<>u. Chol • 0{ Il\< Applicant!<) have a tl-Jee-I<:K
,
.~' "'1':-\,,-'
,~-' j
The f{oaorabJe Vt<:IOI' Ojok,ao, Oair
aDd M""ber! oC the Planning Commissi n
April 26. 1995
Plt&e~
ccrtifialte oC compTIance rallle, ilia!' a 1Wl>' O! .tnific&tc of cornp!i.,,<~ ag.m 5'.188 •• 1
lhat ~ ~de" ol pfool b", 00\ ~." est lIs •• ., Ie $how IL d'l$parirJ between tll.
subje(l pfQPerty &nIf sUru1arly r~,tricted rty in the eonegc TetTan at"-
:t
Given the ~ 51!ow!ng a lack of vi<lcntiary $l:pport an4 ~'linl ollh.
burOeli of proof to sbow extnIordinaI)' Or Wlces for ~cisio<> Finding No.1 Wt
.ame eoodusioa must also be nacbed wlll! e'pea 10 whether tller. is c'lidenu sbowinJ
that Ibe Appotalll is being "'"ied a s~b5ta llal property nib! or unnecessary bardsblp.
The ~(J1I «()Un Slate.! til. analysis 10< • bard,nip issue as fon.,.,.,
A deal illustr1.oon (>{ 'lInnett af)' hardship' Ot",rs, ... ~n the
natural <:OIldi60n or t<lpOgrap y 0{ .,ne', land plac" M",_ at a
disa<!va.'1tag. vis-a,vis other I 00"""" in !lie district. It is
said:. '"Satisfaction of the. requ i"(.ment mat circumstances
whicb result in ulUl<'cessary!l dship be pee-ou", to !b.
"wlien!', properly is mO$\ cl arly e,t.bllsbcd "'bere a
hardship relate. to tbe ph)"'i dl""."wi$tics 0{ ;be lane
• . .. If sin£Ular and related pographkal featuT<' .r.
l.cking. tI>e coUtt may "O! fin lb. t\rO\lm>1""'~ wrucb
ptagJe 111. 2pplkan! M. ",ffe nt CrQill those which affect the
land oC. his neiJhll<x<.
Zakessi4lt, sup"'. 28 Cat.App.3d at BOO.
The at8"mem tballlMectlSBry hard ip is fo<used on til< .... of a specific
amount of square footage 1$ dlree1ly r.lated~'l0 tb. economk t~pa"'Jlti"5 0{ de"'elop1ng
two lots rather than 0 ... addirion&ll<x '" th subject pr~rIy, "gai::. & consQous choice
made by the Applicant. It In fact this is ~ .1;bip. it is .. If·ind~d and t1.IlIS «>aln to
Ibe _n~ed rule Ibat a self-loouced atdsbip .ffo<lis no ~uads fcc !be &nnting
()(. varlanu. To .... of AJMrwIl •• T.mpTet 198 CeI.App.ld 146. 154 (1961). Tbis
fiIIdi!lg Is also <!eficient in IbM it ~ not r lau 1<> Ibe p!:)~ dlaract<ristks of the
property but is .mlnpled to ba Ju$tlfied by • si:. &lid dimer.siolu of Ille room« the
home that would be bunt. Ther. 1$ a!>sol,,! ly no autbcrity in the Z<:Ining O1di1llltlCe oC • vane ol Y!Irlan<e based on ad~ale r silO. On the l:uu. 0{ seJf·lnduud hardship.
it is ~ 10 oo\e tha! \he AppIiC-..tlt <Oll$ 'y .,olded dealing ""til ,.is issue. b
~tpIi from the January 19, -1995 Zoning drninisua!o< bearing. an inquu, wu made
~.:ernlng the collditio!u 0( the "",tta.:t 01' ale !he Applkant indicated that il was !lot
tel •• ant 10 Ibe bean>" (Fartial Hearing T,. ><rip<. p_ 2}
.
,
•
•
... _No ""'" OJ''"'-""', I
and M~Ill't>trs.of the Planning eommi..ml
;.prJ.26. 1995
Paae '
).
i ". , ,
This finding is also unsuppoctcd by 11 evidence. Again, emplo;l1ng 1M Oro Tm
standard of 1Ubs18llrlal evld<on« of peD<> ob<ervaOO",s and examir.alioc of 1M
lnacbJllenlS to the Janua:y 18, 1995 co 'caOOo 01 R0b/3 Oar. is _vId<oorllla! Iller.
is 1\0 shoIoing by the Applicant that Jranlin L1!e van an.,. ,.ill nO! be detrlmenlal to
p<Opcrty or imp«Wement! in the ~L
Tbelast raraz;apbofllle fjndi~ is r'~l~!y ,suspeCt in tbat i': is._ cleu bow
it re1at •• II> t..'" requll'~ment illal gran~ng • appllcauon ",ill nO! be detrimenW 10
property and imprO"emenl5 In the vj.:iruty en Ibe fmding knguage relale. 10 ful1Jre
inhabitants of the boose. Again. applicable tand.rds for gran tin, , variance do W
relale to phyoical cb .... Ol.rl!,!ks of tl1. imp< ement to be built.
In summary. the Decis10n awo'" 10 .~.eCi' result-oriented compromise for Ihe
b<;nle. of proof ror the gra"tit.g of. "rian
An =min.lion of the ·.'001. record ads to the concl~sicn Ib't the Appm"! is
... king approval of development standords hat are comp!etel~ at vari.nce -.i!h llIe
setback requlremenu of the R 1 ZOfle .. Ev. if t~. requiremen, of the law is overlooked.
iii.! onJy • ver;, small percentage of varilnc applicaOoIl$ .""uld h. "",'lted ... ·ba! the .
AppI.i= ~ seeking is the imrosltion and 8 .... "'-a: of developmenl standards wbid! ate
more cbaracteristic of a dens<r resi<lential % ne. In effeel, 1M Applicant .110.ld be
.. eking a change or ztlne. something which ' •• TOJl<lll8ll <0\1.'1 also condudec! as
improper. Topanga. "'pre!, 11 Cal.3<1 at 5 Stalec! differently, the Applicant is ~e1dr.f.
a pie .. .ual .djudi<:aticl> or ",1:a t .book! be a ch","&e of zone appncation for llIe
development standards whl<:h it scoles. lb' is a subve"ion of the variance proce ...
D. n
1. CEQA Prgccdure.
The discretionary decision 0( "a"rln 0<' denying a variance is a project under
CEQA which may. =thekss, be ategor' ny or slatutorily uempt from
envi...t'onmental review.
lbc only refereo« to compliance wi CCQA is the slaternent on page 9 of lb.
Staff Report which provides:
lbc project is ca 'egorkally ex mpt from the California
Env'.lonmen!.! Qualit)l Att ( Q.').
The HOtlO<ab!e ... ·lCIOf Oialdan, Chair
and Memben ()( tb~ ~ ... nnin8 C<)<lUl'.~i n
April 26, 1995
Pag~ 1
. -
, .' .
No referetl(;e i! ma6e in the rttord r t.'">e Decision 10 a &pecific crQA.
(lukle1ines 5<:cWn in<fi<t.ting ... lIlt the basi 0( Ihe <:ooct\iSion {oc <&tei<>fkal uemptlcn
mey be. In." April 24, 1995 <onversarlon ·tII Mr. l<neph M Colonna, OIY Senior
Ptanner. il was relAted that Ill.,. would be no funher SIaff justificatioo fo< 1M
Qleliiorlcal ... emption unless it ".~ar.d ;nlbC noo« for Ill<: pr~.c<fic8 which .... s
eumined willi Mr. Colonna also revealing <> in<f~tIon for the conclusion of CMOmption
from enviromnenw re-.-!ew.
It is re5pe<tfuUy suggestee!. u noted Ill. findL"P Section n 0( this
.COllUtl"nicatioa tIlat tlIis lac. of uplan.1i<! or "idential} support foe finding the
application '" be cateiorkal!y exemp! '" at 0( j~l! constiMes • basis fer granting tbc
appeal of we oppooiLton and denying the • rianco. Categorical .,.emptior .. ar. 10 be
narrowly coostrl.le6 and used ·00.1)' in ~ ituatior.s • ... ·ber~ its a't>solute" and pr-ecise
language clearly appli ... • DwL~·£dwOT4J ~a'j...,.' •. B-;zy hea Air Quafuy
MfO'AgelflQll Distril:t. 9 C.1App.~th G44. 6 (1992). Thus, assuming argue,'1do tl!a: a
~ci& CEQA Guidelines exe",ption $<cti ""e $<' ("<th .... !lIcb it is not, t~e pubtic
-cannot speculate as tG whelh.e!' !... .... e precise nguaee of !bat unk/lQ .... n section. would
actually .w:,·
.The iss~e of utcgorical exemptions ·as addr .... ~ in East i'enbtsu/a u..cati()lZ
Cow!a1.-Palos Verdes Peninsufll (froJMd 001 Distrfa. 21() CaJ.App.3d ISS, 11().115
(1989) rEa.; Potinsu[a') with Ite court su .sting that an approvU\g agency, it rdying
upon. CAtegorica1 exemption.. sbould be ca fut to (reace an adm~n!stratiy!: record
sbowin, Ibat tile agency fully <OIlSldered '" me, lb. project miglll cause sii1lificant
impacu. In East PtniIuula. the COUt1 round ,hat lbe illvolved school cflStrKt had faJ1ed
10 consider wbelller signifkanl cumulative 1 pacts might r.sult from ·suCCC$5iv. pr<>jects
of the same type and the ...",e pla«." It b respectfully .ugge"ed tbat this ;. lb. ume
type (!( issue Iba, is present with the $Ubi-varian~. If this ... me tn'C of variance "'''e
10 reoccur the cumulative Impac< would be "twersfon 0{ .. ie R I Zone and Ill< creation
01 • c!cvelopme"t densi!)' far beyond tl\.t templ_led witho<>t a propel .... ssment of
Iraffi<: I.JId circulation and other .avira""", Imp.co ... As tlJe Ecst p.nbuula court
suggestS, Stlob record 01 en"'.ronmenw .n.~ .. partkuJarly appropriate as it ,. .. ould b.
consistent wilh tbe crQII. principle lba, II. must be interpreted in suc'" a manner as
to affctd Ib .. t..n., ... ~ib!. prOlection t~ • environment withil1 lb. r.asonabl. $Cope
of the statutory laJlgUage. £asr p..uftSUfa, rtl. 210 CalApp.3d at 171.
One only need look at tl!e uniq~., stt .1 configuratioa on the westtrn boundaI) of
C<>Ileie Temeo, Ibe location of til. su1>ject opetty to envision. singular potential
significa!\l impact on the pb)~cal .nvironm ~ that of peovlding a greater density of
tesi6ential housing .t • b!oc!(ed-off into", On and the possible effect on ~nimpeded
use of the slIee, ~ emerger",:! v.hick,. Pe nal obseN.tk>n woold sune" that boI'n
Bo.,doin and Columbia ate used ",th greot teq"ency by tile fite depanmeD.( to access
calls Co< assislance on Sunfo<d A.'.nue.
, . ,
•
,
r'
-.i j
•
•
",
-.'>,. . ...-:. ;Q.
Tbe Honorable V ... '1O< OjaJdan. Oak
.Del Mem."e~ of tile Planning Cmnmlssl
... prII 26,. 1995
Pag. B
~. -,
, . -.
"~ .".-
.~ .. tlIer. is Ib$olutely no roo
advan«d In Ibis instan~ .nd beta\l" it is
variance to juo!ify its use, tIllless the re<Ord
rompiianc:e with CEQA is IlO! present
on bow lI:e cat.sarical .. emption is
at the burlkn of lb. opposition to ~
,owl.monled In some ""'1 curro"! framed
Incjee<l, ;t it can be .. tablisbed th., ,ere are 'unus'JaI circumstances" pr ... nt ""'.
CEQ" Guidelines ",<tion 153OO2(e)]1 cat orkal ... mpiioo UMo; be used. Soch
umaw Orcurr.s1ances also resuit from tbe tturac'j in which L~ project is actuany
described unde' .... bat is ~ as the 'ian. of divi>io,,: ~ McQuem., Bo""lof
Di=toi. ofthl! JrJ-P<ninsuIa Reg:OMl ~ SpQl;~ bistro, 202 CaIApp3d 1136,1143-
1141 {1988}. A1tllough it may be justified, clo1m that. certifi<:ate a( cornpliancc ak>l"o"
is C81ego..""'iaUy exempt from. CEQA !tvicw ben it is combL.'l4:'d 'ilIitb tlIe \'2.riam~e
applkation modi¥ng the site <levelopmo", taodatds, tllis 'divisioo' is • scgrnent2tion,
oc 'chopp[ng-up' of tile project whicb is [lQl rrr,;ued whon attempting 10 cle!ermine tll.
appropriate mcc'>od 10 determine how a pr ect ","ill comply with crQA Boru"l~'
U>ca! Agc/lq Fomtation. Cam, 13 C.tJd 2ti , 283-284 {1975}.
In summaty* it is legally impermissib !O siIl",ply cTaim tb:u the project is
catego<ically Clemp< from CEQA .. vie",. 'ell. 2SSl:mL'i some type of rtference 10 • .
particular CEQA Guidelines could be set f l>, lItilber (be Staff, nor the Applicant off .. -
-any .vide""" to .upport such an exemption. Funb." substantial evidenc. in terms of
personal cbservation of ne;ghbocs on the ff", issu~ ",,,,,ld overcome til. tIlre.hold of
any reasonably ronlemplated exemptio,," SO at IU\ ItIitial Study 5bou!<I be ptepar.~ 10
cje:ennioe (be I)Ipe of environmental anarys whkb sboold occur for tJ-.e varian<e.
I r.
CONe USION
Based o. the foregoing. it re,pectfuU submitted rna"
(1) The Decision is nO( supporte by legaDy adequate findings or substantial
evidence in Ille record and tll rdoce the appeal of the opposition should
be granted and the vatiance • ould be denied; and,
,
The Honorable Yl<:IOi' Ojaldan. OIair
fond Merp\>el'$ olebe PI.nni oS Comm,,,!
Ajri~ 1995
Pa&e 9
(2)
•
The user.ioll tl:at Ill. appllca ·00 1$ <ategorically cxempc from CEQA
r~view Is not suppot1ed by an .vidence in the re.:crll and because •
proje:t may"O! be approved xcept if its ~ with CEQA is
eemonsttaled ISIIVbVd >. oJ &vt &nile. 122 Cal.A1'I'.3d 6S1
(1981»). !be grant ol tho v • co by tll. Decision sbould aloo be
di$allowed.
•
;
•
r<:<.J... -J. pl .... ') Co ........
7' ! .). '" /"is'"
PJaDAicl Commislon Members
Cit) 01 Pzlo Alto
2SO HamilloD Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
April 26, 1995
D-..ar PtaanjllC Commiss!oD Members.
I am very muclo cop~ 10 the gran tiDg of any variance,
COOIIitional or ",.her";se for th~ property al 1475 Stanf«cI Ave. ia
m} prey'"",s I.tlet t.> the Z<JniDg Administrat<>r, I addressecl SO~ 01
m1 COnt'UlI5 about the inconsis!cocies if! granting of the C~fi..::ate of
Compliance, especially as ",gards ~ complete lack of pubrn: notice
ill this case. Toda1, ho,,·ever, I ",JIll" like 10 speak 10 you about
College Terrace and lIIbat kiDd of • place it is. College Terrace is, first
anel foremost a neigbborbood, probably more so tban most other
areas of Palo All<!. It is an area ",bere tIIere bas long be<:n a
tradition of smaller homes. du~ to the way that 11 was originall,.
subdivided into 25 foot lots, causing a proljferation of bomes built <>"
these 25 foot lots. Other> have 2 of these Io!s witb • 50 foot "i<le lot
line; this ma1c:es comparisons wit) the rest of Palo Alto an d its
standard M foot lot size iuvalid. We sbeuld be looking at this
proposed development will!. regard 10 the norm foc College Terrace.
not lb. rest of Palo Alto.
n. residents of College Terra<:. are a Ero"p of close knit
. neighbors. "'e live together, play tog_Iller, care. about eat1 otlJer, and
look out for eacll OIller. I oppose any granting of a variane< for this
prcopeT!) based 011 lbe idea that it is somehow necessary 10 build a
luger house lIIao a1lollable in order for this bouse to be livable.
There are m~ .. , families jn College Terrace living quile happily in
bome> smaller than t,'l. one prcoposed for this Jot. I, myself, live ""til
my busband and til, .... children i~ a 1600 square foot hoose and
have lived here for Ibe past 1 g yean. I feel thaI a 'functional an d
aesthetkall, appeali.g· hoose can be built at 1475 Stanford Ave.
withiR the cwtent allowable guidelines. There i.· personally hoWl!
\() me .. famil, that has lived j.. College Temce with Il>ei! ~. year
old son. ... ho !las attended Escondido School for the past five y .. "'.
This is .. (..".,lJ of Wee wbo bas bees trying 10 buy • bome for their
famil} iR College Terra<:<: for the past year and .. ith eac' house the,
~ave L;ed to buy, they have bee. ou tbi 01 by the developers
ellf7ently uploitin, College Terrace and have nO! bee. able to bu,
Dntil just ,,,,,ently. ,IUs is just tb<: SC<1 of {amil} that 'IIould be
interested in buying • smaller borne suell as one tTlat ("'.lId be built
at 1475 Stanford Ave. witk no variances allowed. There are and
.'.
always will be small famili~s 9100 only need I small oou~. We, as a
community, and )101,1 as Planning Commission members have I duty
10 _plIold our building reg~lation. so tha! .ff<,<dable bousing is wll
built and .till available for juS! Ibe lind of f.mily I have described.
There is so link affordable housing ~ft (oc young families to buy ill
Palo Alto and a scaled-do .... version of .,hat is reque'ted by the
builder in this ea.. may be just wbat some are JooCng for. it i.
cerWnly no( true thai the only sellable, livable bouse that can be
built OIl Ibis property need be as larie IS is requested. In facl, Ibe
cbatlC1'" of 111. neillbl>o<hood dietales smaller, rather tbaA luger
lome •.
la ~ddition, I would like 10 male a roquest that is prooably nO!
in my purvie~ to mate but I would lib it to go 00 the recOld
.oy".y_ Since I do male my borne bere and walk by this property
daily and lIav. seed. tile garbage, disrepair I.d i. fae! bave reported
Ibese to lhe city as detaIled in my previous letter 10 the Zoning
Administrator, I would like 10 respectfully request !har mi. area be
kept up '\0 a certain level or bask maintenance, ilt !east. SO as to-make
Ibe sidewal"s passable and safe fer adnlts and for the cbi1<ireR wbo
daily walk dow~ tIlis .treet 10 gel 10 Escondido Scboot I fear that
someone is golag to .... rt t!>emselves here and hve myself picked up
rusty nails and broke. gl... from the sidewalk.
I ,.",old also lib \0 request that since Mr_ Migdal !las stated it
is inlen! not to lear do ..... tile eEisling bouse that be sboold 1><;.
r"'luire.s 10 bring that !>uilding i. compliance witl bis newli created
let lines bef= b. proceed. with either of the new bouse.. This
... ould involve hi. building a ne... ~ang. or parking spaces for the
C.J:isting home since tbe edsting garage is now on another Dewf,
created lot. It seems t<> me that the original house sbould be brought
illtO eDmpliance .nd he needs 10 sbow good fait. i. performance of "'at before he sbould be allowed 10 build addioonal bome ..
Finally, I enclose a copy of the recent Sao Jose Mercury News
utick about our neigbborllood, i. wbieb I was interviewed, wbiei
some Df the Pl2nning Commissionen migbt like to read. And please,
remembe., Oi. iJ. our ~igbborbood and we will have 10 live with the
decisions you male about College Terrace.
-I £'.. Ir . mY I IJ ,r.>t1~n.(!
John and Marit... Fr.nkf_"
1460 College Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
•
April 26, 1995
To,.hen iI may 00DCern;
~,I>' ~ i'-'':'';
c..-~~
"I) 'lit I '1S
We. Micbacl and Cadly Dolbec, are homeowner'. and reside 311348 CoI']ege A veDue.
UnrortuDal.eIy, due so prior commitments IOcip~ we are unable so _00 Ihe Planning meeti..,. Just c!le same we wouJd like so voice our oPPDu4 poo;;tioo 10 !be ~
cnS.nance 11m! is up far a vole !his evenIog. We are speclrJCa!1y speaking _!he variance
roo: Ihe ~ 1475 St."rord A "Due.
Our baDe is 1 yc:m old and "'bea w.'. made Ihe decisioD so IIlOYe into College Terrace, ",e
did 10 fer !pecif Ie reasons:
I. TIle 'dd" !)pe c( neipbodlood fcelin~
2. The milt c( barnes and farru1ies 1I'i!hio.
3. "Less" 1raff IC !han Old 1'>10 Alto neighborhood.<.
Additlooany.1he loLl!; are not lar~ in CdIege Tenac:e. TD changr the nrJanC'~ Co
accommodate tbls builder would destroy. buge part or con. T~rl'1lC"t.
Slanford A,'eDUe, especially on Ibe 1400 bloc!<, is Ihe busies! are. rigtu DQ<\ (E!iCO!ldido
BemeoINy Schoo!, feed intolout c( Slanfocd, SCRA's entr.uK:e) • so add I more home, I
more family would ooly add so !be coog<Stioc and safe!)',
We bope)'OO .. ilI oonsider all C(1he Dei"b'. impac1>!hat s,"" a V(,<e .. ould =-
, .