Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-02-09 City Council (4)
TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report. HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER FEBRUARY 9, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:132:98 SUBJECT:LOS TRANCOS ROAD (ARRILLAGA LANDS); ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE MAP WITH REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBDIVISION OF 151.41 ACRES INTO EIGHT SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE 81+ ACRE~ PRIVATE OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREA PARCEL; CONTINUED FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1998 (City File Nos: 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190 and 94-EIA-31). REPORT IN BRIEF On January 20, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed 8-lot subdivision. The Council voted to continue the item for additional information. This report contains the additional information that was requested, along with the December 15, 1997 City Manager’s Report (CMR:496:97) summarizing the project and the recommendations. The additional information contained in this report includes a chart/table presenting a comparison of three of the project alternatives discussed in the attached December 15, 1997 report (Attachment 1F) and draft findings and conditions for approval of Tentative Map revisions based on the FEIR Alternative 5 (8-lot Cluster Variation Alternative). CIvlR:132:98 Page 1 of 14 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Certify the Los Trancos Road Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate. This recommendation is based on the Planning Commission’s finding (August 15, 1997) that a) the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was adequately prepared and b) the FEIR respond to all comments on the DEIR, and include the assessment of an additional project alternative (8-lot clustered variation). Deny the Tentative Map based on the fmdings presented in Attachment 2B of this report. The staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and making the findings, including a Statement of Ovemding Consideration (Attachment 1E).and approval of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan (Attachment 12). Approve the Tentative Map and conditional exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210, permitting a portion of the main access road to be developed with a grade in excess of 15 percent and PAMC Section 21.28.020, permitting a reduction in the required road right-of-way and pavement width, as outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated November 12, 1997, based on the fmdings presented in Attachment 2, and the Architectural Review Board findings presented in Attachment 2A and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3, including the additional revisions to the design and layout of the map, as generally depicted in Attachment 4. BACKGROUND The project proposes the subdivision of151.41 acres into eight single-family residential lots and one, 8 !+ acre parcel for permanent, private open space/common area use. The property is located in the Palo Alto foothills and is subject tothe provisions of the OS (Open Space) District. The OS District permits a maximum density of 10 acres per unit. The subdivision proposes a density of one unit per 18.9 acres of gross land area. A detailed discussion of the proposed subdivision and information on the site and setting are provided on pages 2 through 12 of the attached Planning Commission staff report. DISCUSSION On January 20, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed project. Following closure of the hearing and discussion, the City Council voted to continue to project to the meeting of February 9, 1998 (8 yes, 0 no, Huber absent). The Council requested that staff and the EIR consultants provide additional information on specific issues. CMR:132:98 Page 2 of 14 The following is the list of issues and additional information requested by the Council. Each item is followed by a response. What is the estimated tree loss for implementation of the 8-lot Cluster Variation Alternative (FEIR Alternative 5) assuming each lot would contain a 20,000 square foot building envelope? Re sp ons e: A rough/preliminary estimate of tree removal for Alternative 5 has been prepared by the EIR consultant. The consultants have also provided tree removal estimates for the staff-recommended alternative (Attachment 4) and the latest revisions to the map submitted by the project sponsor (described in attached CMR dated 12/15/97). None of the estimates present tree removal on grading for the main or emergency access roads, as these amounts are the same for all three alternatives (each proposes the road to align with the existing, graded fire access road). The tree removal estimates assume the following for each lot: ao While a 20,000-square-foot building envelope area is assumed, a 6,300- square-foot building pad for each lot was used in the estimates. The 6,300- square-foot pad was used as a ’base’ in assessing tree removal in the FEIR (for an estimated 10,000-square-foot home). ’ bo Tree ~removal was assumed for the development of a home and private driveway. Co Some tree removal and/or clearing around the home and private driveway was assumed to comply with the fuel management requirements (fuel management zones of 100 feet from residence and 30 feet from driveway). An individual tree count within each building envelope area was not conducted. However, tree removal estimates were based on the following: ao Use of the tree survey conducted by the applicant’s arborist (provided in Attachment 8). Building envelopes were located on the sites(as feasible) based on landmarks (including already marked trees, where available from tree survey). For locations of development that were uncertain (e.g:, specific building envelope areas for Alternative 5), estimated tree loss was based on the square feet of development using tree density. A tree density amount was developed from the tree survey (Attachment 8, referenced above), specifically for the applicant’s proposed Lot 5. Proposed Lot 5 has a dense tree cover ClVlR:132:98 Page 3 of 14 characteristic of the eastern portion of the site. The tree density was estimated at one tree per 395 square feet of land area with 60 percent of the trees in this area being I 11A inches in trtmk diameter or greater. d.A 12-foot-wide private driveway width was assumed for estimating tree loss. The site resuks fmd that Alternative 5 would require the greatest amount of tree removal (117 trees), followed by the applicant’s latest map revisions (62 trees) and the staff-recommended alternative (49 trees). The quantitative results are presented in Attachment 1F, which is a table/chart that provides a comparison of the three alternatives (discussed below). It should be noted that the building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Alternative 5 would be located within the mixed evergreen forest (woodland) area. ’If Alternative 5 is selected as the preferred design and layout for the subdivision, conditions of approval will need to acknowledge that the envelopes for these lots likely contain protected trees, as defined by PAC 8.10. Attachment 3A provides a list of draft conditions addressing a subdivision design consistent with Altemative 5. Condition 2f of Attachment 3A requires that the deed for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 include a note that "protected trees" may need to be removed for lot development. Provide a computer-generated visual simulation of applicant’s latest revisions to Tentative Map. Response: Unfortunately, the computer-generated visual simulations could not be completed within the time frame provided by the City Council. Firstly, it takes several weeks to prepare the simulations as they involve field work and computer time. "Secondly, the consultant that prepared the visual simulations for the FEIR (Square One) is currently not available to complete this work because of other commitments and deadlines. o Revise and provide a more detailed computer-generated visual simulation of Alternative 5. What are the off-site visual impacts from Foothills Park? Response: See response to item/issue 2, above. Draft findings and conditions of approval should be prepared for a more tightly. clustered alternative. CMR:132:98 Page 4 of 14 Response: The more tightly clustered alternative is Alternative 5 in the final EIR. Draft fmdings and draft conditions of approval for a Tentative Map that would be consistent with the FEIR Alternative 5 are provided as Attachments 2C and 3A of this report. A condition of approval should be added which a) prohibits the fencing of individual lots or b) modifies the fencing around the perimeter of the property to permit wildlife movement through the site. Response: Please see the proposed revisions to conditions 2 and 20 of Attachment 3. Condition 2g has been added to ensure that the Final Map and the deed for each lot include a note/provision that prohibits the perimeter fencing of individual lots. Likewise, condition 20h has been added to ensure that the fencing prohibition is included in the Subdivision CC & Rs. Please note that these same condition amendments were made to Attachment 3A (draft conditions for FEIR Alternative 5, 8-lot cluster variation alternative). Install 25-foot story poles in field depicting location of buildings for Alternative 5. Response: Given the weather conditions and the limited time frame, the applicant’s consultants have not been able to install story poles. Each City Council Member should be provided with a set of transparencies (8½ x 11) of various-map alternatives: staff recommended Attachment 4, Alternative 5 and applicant’s latest revisions to Tentative Map. Response: The following members: transparencies are being provided to each of the City Council o 1.Staff-recommended revisions to design and layout of Tentative Map (Attachment 4). 2.8-lot Cluster Variation Alternative (FEIR Alternative 5). 3.Applicant’s latest revisions to design and layout of Tentatix~e Map. 4.Habitat Map (FEIR Exhibit 5.7-1). How would the 3.5 percent impervious surface coverage limit for each lot be applied to the proposed 20,000-square-foot building envelope? C!VIR:132:98 Page 5 of 14 Response: All impervious surface and building coverage permitted for each lot would be required to be limited to a) the designated building envelope area to be identified on the Final Subdivision Map and b) the portion of the private driveway that would be located outside the designated building envelope area, No impervious surface or building coverage would be permitted in the private open space areas of the residential lots (lot area located outside the building envelope and private access driveway) The OS District presents two methods of determining the 3.5 percent allowable impervious surface and bt~ding coverage for development projects and subdivisions. For a "standard" large-lot ~ubdivision that does not include any clustering of lots or public/private open space, each lot is allowed up to 3.5 percent impervious surface coverage; the coverage is based on individual lot size. For example, in a subdivision that contains lots of 10 acres in size with no permanent open space, the impervious surface coverage limit for each lot would be 15,246 square feet. For subdivisions that incorporate "clustering" and establish a permanent open space (public or private) parcel, PAC Section 18.71.080 (Maximum building coverage) states as follows: "The maximum impervious area and building coverage shall be 3.5 percent; provided that where a portion of a subdivision with clustered lots of less than 10 acres in size contains an area rendered undevelopable by an’ open space restriction, the impervious coverage which wOuld otherwise be allotted to this undeveloped area shall be transferred to those lots within the subdivision on which the development will be permitted in a proportional manner based on lot size." The subdivision design proposes lots of less than 10 acres in size and contains a permanent open space/common area parcel ("..an area rendered undevelopable by an open space restriction"). Therefore, the recommendations for impervious surface coverage presented in the attached Planning Commission staff report follow the provisions, of Section 18.71.080. The staff recommendations are based on the following steps in determining impervious surface and building coverage for this subdivision: bo Determine the precise property acreage of the entire site and factor out/discount the land area necessary for the 60-foot-wide right-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. Determine the impervious surface coverage for the main access road, the emergency access road, the existing caretaker’s home and barn and the on-site water tank. CMR:132:98 Page 6 of 14 10. Co After discounting the above (a and b), the imperious surface that is remaining to maintain the maximum permitted code allowance of 3.5 percent shall be proportioned to each lot for both building envelope and driveway improvements. Based on the latest subdivision design, approximately 12,000 square feet of impervious surface and building coverage would be permitted for each lot (to. stay within the 3.5 percent maximum). Some members of the public oppose the above methodology, recommending that the 3.5 percent maximum coverage limit be applied to each "clustered" lot, without considering the transfer of impervious coverage credit from the proposed permanent open space. For example, a "clustered" two acre lot would yield a permitted impervious surface coverage of 3,049 square feet, inclusive of the private driveway. This approach would not be consistent with the provisions of the code and would unfairly limit coverage for each lot by not giving credit for the proposed open space parcel. Is the subdivision proposed to be gated? If so, where is a privacy/security gate proposed to be installed? Response: The subdivision is proposed to be gated. According to the project engineer, a privacy/security gate has always been anticipated in the plans of the subdivision, with a gate likely to be installed near t.he base of the main access road. To date, no specific plans have been presented showing the details of the location or design of the gate. The detailed location and design of the gate should be included in the Final Map Improvement Plans. Condition 6 of Attachment 3 (draft conditions of approval) requires that certain subdivision improvements be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Condition 6 has been amended to require that the details for the design and location of the security gate be included in the Final Map Improvement Plans. The draft condition amendment is as follows: The location and design of the security/privacy gate that is proposed at the base of the main access road. The colors, mi~terials and size of the gate shall be consistent with the rural setting of the site. Please note that this condition has also been added to Attachment 3A (draft conditions for FEIR Alternative 5, 8-lot cluster variation alternative). A chart/table should be prepared showing the differences in the staff-recommended changes to the design and layout of the map (Attachment 4), the 8-lot cluster variation CMR:132:98 Page 7 of 14 alternative presented in the FEIR/Response to Comments (Alternative 5), and applicant’s latest T6ntative Map revisions (presented in Attachment 1D of the report). Response: A chart/table has been prepared which provides a comparison between the three alternatives. This chart/table is presented in Attachment 1F of this report. 11.How does this project compare to the Romano/Blackman project that underwent a pre-screening application review several years ago? Response: The Romano/Blackman property consisted of approximately 11 acres of land located on Los Trancos Road, near Alpine Road. Until recently, the property was developed with a single-family dwelling and a grouping of greenhouses/hothouses. As is the case with the subject property, .the Romano/Blackman site is within the OS District and is located outside the boundaries of the City’s Urban Service Area boundaries. Unlike the subject property, the Romano/Blackman site is fairly level. In January 1996, the Planning Commission completed a pre-screening review of a proposal to redevelop the 11-acre site. The project proposed to rezone the property from the current OS District (one unit/10 acres) and establish 10 new single-family residential building sites. The project would have resulted in a one dwelling unit per one-acre density and urban services were. proposed to serve the development. The Planning Commission comments on the pre-screening application were unanimously unfavorable. Specifically, the project was found to be inconsistent with the character and density of development in the Palo Alto Foothills. The applicant withdrew the application prior to City Council consideration. The proposal for the Romano/Blackman site was very different from and not comparable to the proposed 8-1ot subdivision. The Arrillaga subdivision proposes no changes to the current OS District zoning and presents a project density that is consistent and compatible with other development in the Palo Alto Foothills. 12.How tall are new trees (to be planted) expected to grow? How tall do the trees need to be to provide adequate screening? Response: As this project is in the Tentative Map stage of City review, no landscaping and/or tree replanting plan has beendeveloped. Therefore, the specific type and location of trees that would be planted for screening homes is not known at this time. As the exact homesite locations are unknown, the height of trees necessary to provide screening is also unknown. Regardless, the height of trees necessary for proper screening of structures would vary depending upon the specific viewpoint. Tree CMR:132:98 Page 8 of 14 planting and screening was addressed in the FEIR and in the merits review of the project. This issue has been addressed in two stages: a) the screening that would occur during the development of each home site and b) tree replanting and screening that would be implemented as part of the subdivision improvements. Each of these is addressed below. Screening requirements for individual home sites are addressed in the project FEIR. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 5.8-1 of the DEIR (Volume I, pages 5.8-22 through 5.8-23) requires that a photo simulation (computer-generated montage of at least three representative locations) be prepared at the time of the Site and Design Review application process for each lot. During the Site and Design Review process, the specific design, size, height and location of the proposed home will be required for application processing. In addition, a landscaping plan must accompany the home plans. Given that photo simulations will be required for the Site and Design Review process for each lot, the extent of landscaping and the expected maturity (tree height) will be required to be analyzed. The initial planting and the maturity height of trees that are installed for screening will depend upon the selected species. Non-native trees generally grow faster and taller than the native species (oaks). As part of the Site and Design Review process, faster-growing non-native trees can be required to be planted to promote a quicker, more immediate screen, provided that the non-native species are limited to the designated building envelope area. Tree replanting and screening for the proposed subdivision improvements are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 3) and in the staff recommendations for revisions to the design and layout of the map (Attachment 4, Sheet 1 of 3 shows location of recommended tree replanting areas).. Specifically, condition 5 of Attachment 3 requires that a tree replanting program be prepared as part of the Final Map Improvement Plans. The replanting would occur during the completion of the subdivision improvements (prior to any individual lot development or Site and Design Review process). Tree replanting is recommended for the southwestern slopes of proposed Lots 1 and 8, areas of open, non-native grassland. Tree planting in these area would assist in providing some screening of homes on these sites. However, there are some constraints that need to be considered. Specifically, the conditions require the planting of native trees (primarily oaks), planted at sizes ranging from one-gallon container stock to 24-inch box. Conditions 47 and 48 require the monitoring of the planting areas for the first five years following installation. A one-gallon container stock size is approximately five feet in height with 24-inch box tree height being approximately seven to ten feet in height. Also, it should be noted that, at maturity, trees in an area of oak woodland generally reach a canopy height of 2.5 feet. It takes many years for oaks to reach maturity. Therefore, these planted areas would not provide an immediate or short-term screening of structures on Lots 1 and 8. CMR:132:98 Page 9 of 14 13. The existing woodland canopy located along the ridgetop portion of the site is approximately 25 feet in height. Therefore, the placement of homes (with maximum building heights of 25 feet per OS District) in and around the woodland area should. have effective screening. What are the fuel management "clearing" requirements around structures? How does this impact tree removal, specifically for Alternative 5? Response: Fuel Management Zones (FMZs) have been addressed and analyzed in the project FEIR. Please refer to pages 5.7-8 and 5.7-9 of the DEIR (Volume I). Implementation of FMZs generally require the removal of the following within 100 feet of a residence and 30 feet from a driveway/roadway: a.The removal of all dead plant material; bo The removal of all underbrush, the cutting of grass and weeds and removal of plants that could spread fire from the ground to tree canopies; and c. The removal of tree branches near chimneys. The " .Implementation of an effective FMZ program does not require the removal of oak and/or other native trees and would not require the removal of many native shrubs. Given that an FMZ program does not require the removal of trees around structures and roads, implementation of the program would have very few visual impacts on the landscape from off-site. It should be noted t_hat the computer-generated visual simulations prepared in the project FEIR take into account tree loss and loss of underbrush and grass from an FMZ program. For Alternative 5 (8-lot cluster variation alternative), the implementation of an FMZ program for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 (located in mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland) would result in some small amount of tree removal adjacent to home sites, where fire could be spread to rooftops. 14.Explain the 40-foot-wide versus the 60-foot-wide right-of-way dedications for LOS Trancos Road. Is the $6,000 traffic mitigation fee for Los Trancos Road an adequate contribution for the project? Response: The Tentative Map proposes a road fight-of-way dedication of 60 feet in width. The 60-foot-wide fight-of-way represents the City standard for a "local" and "collector" street, and the maximum fight-of-way width that would be needed if Los Trancos CMR:132:98 Page 10 of 14 Road were to be widening and improved to its ultimate width (40 feet curb-to-curb). The current City policy is to complete "Minor Operational" improvements along those portions of Los Trancos Road that are within the Palo Alto. city limits. These improvements would not result in major widening of the road (road widths would be maintained at approximately 20-22 feet). Given that it is the City policy to maintain the current widths along this road, the full 60-foot-wide dedication of the road right- of-way is not necessary. Public Works Engineering has determined that the City’s acceptance of a 40-foot right-of-way, at this time, would be appropriate for implementation and on-going maintenance of the "Minor Operational" improvements.. The offer for dedication of the additional 20 feet of right-of-way (for the full-60-foot width) would remain on the map. If, at some time in the future, the City changes its policy regarding improvements along Los Trancos Road, the City will have the right to accept the additional 20-foot dedication. The $6,000 traffic mitigation fee represents the project’s fair-share contribution to mitigation for additional traffic along Los Trancos Road. The costs for the "Minor Operational" improvements along Los Trancos Road are estimated at $150,000. The project will generate 4 percent of the traffic along this road. Four percent of the total cost is $6,000. How is the emergency access road presently used by the applicant? Response: The emergency access road commences at the Los Trancos Road property entrance and runs southeastward through the Lee common area parcel (common open space parcel for the adjacent Lee Residential Subdivision) to the City-owned 7.7 acres (located northeast of subject property). This graded road is located on the south side of Buckeye Creek and is north of the subject property. The applicant uses this access road as for vehicle access to the City-owned 7.7 acre parcel, as well as vehicle access to the caretakers residence and barn located at the southeast comer of the subject property. Vehicle access to the Quarry site and Arrillaga residence is provided by the.main access road to the Lee Subdivision. The main access road is located on the north side of Buckeye Creek and parallels the emergency access road. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Should the City Council deny the Tentative Map as Commission, no further action is necessary or required. recommended by the Planning Should the City Council approved the Tentative Map and the request for conditional exceptions from the PAC Sections 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (Subdivision Ordinance), the project sponsor would be required to prepare a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement C!VIR: 132:98 Page 11 of 14 Plans, as well as necessary subdivision agreements. The Final Map would require the approval of the City Council, prior to recordation with the County of Santa Clara. Some of the components of the Subdivision Improvement Plans (fmal road design, retaining wall details, tree replanting program and final design and color or water tank) would require final review by the Architectural Review Board, prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. Each single-family lot would be subject to Site and Design Review, which requires review by the Planning Commission a~ld approval by the City Council. If the subdivision is approved, permits and/or approvals will or may be required by the following agencies: County of santa Clara Department of Health Services (individual septic systems). o Santa Clara Valley Water District (all construction work within 50 feet of Los Trancos .Creek or Buckeye Creek). 3.Cal EPA- Regional Water Quality Control Board 4.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5.California Department of Fish and Game ATTACHMENTS City Manager’s Report of December 15, 1997 (CMR:496:97), which includes the following attachments: Attachment 1: Attachment 1A: Attachment 1B: Attachment 1C: Attachment 1D: Attachment 1E:. Attachment 1F: Attachment 2: Location Map Original/Initial Tentative Map Proposed (Revised) Tentative Map Alternative #5, 8-lot Cluster Variation Alternative Letter and graphic from project sponsor (Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. and Guzzardo and Associates), November 24, 1997 Resolution certifying the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report and Findings, including a Statement of Overriding Consideration ChatffFable presenting a comparison of three project alternatives (staff- recommended map revisions, FEIR Alternative 5 and latest map layout revisions proposed by project sponsor) (NEW) Draft Findings for Approval of the Tentative Map and Conditional Exceptions CMR: 132:98 Page 12 of 14 Attachment 2A: Draft Findings for Architectural Review of Proposed Subdivision Improvements Attachment 2B: Findings for Denial of the Tentative Map, as recommended by the Planning Commission Attachment2C: Draft Findings for Approval of Tentative Map revisions and Conditional Exceptions based on FEIR Alternative 5 (8-lot cluster variation a~ternafive) (NEW) Attachment 3: Draft Conditions of Approval (REVISED) Attachment 3A: Draft Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map revisions based on FEIR Alternative 5 (8-lot cluster variation alternative) (REVISED) Attachment 4:Map/graphics presenting recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map, consistent with recommended conditions of approval Planning Commission Staff Report, November 12, 1997, which includes the following attachments: Attachment 5A:Review of revised Tentative Map for consistency with City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria Attachment 5B:Review of revised Tentative Map for consistency with pertinent Portola Valley Design Guidelines Attachment 6:letter from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo Alto to John Amllaga, property owner, outlining the Below Market Rate (BMR) Hous’ing Agreement; June 2, 1997 and signed by property owner on October 20, 1997. Attachment 7:Table comparing the proposed subdivision with neighboring developments (existing and approved). Attachment 8:Arborist Report/Tree Inventory Attachment 9:Letter from United Soil Engineering, Inc. To John Arrillaga regarding alternative slope stabilization measures; October 13, 1997 Attachment 10:Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, November 6, 1997 Attachment 11:Letter from Clearwater Hydrology to Nichols-Berman, EIR consultants regarding downstream flooding and hydrology along Buckeye Creek; November 11, 1997. Attachment 12: Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan Correspondence -- written comments and letters from agencies, organizations, special interest groups, neighboring residents and property owners Tentative Map, plans and Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions [Council Members only] Attachment 4, full-size set [Council Members only] Transparencies [Council Members only] CMR:132:98 Page 13 of 14 PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: J~E FLEMING - ~’. 1~ ’~ City Manager CC:John Arrillaga, Perry and Arrillaga, 2650 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 10t, Santa Clara, California 95054-1291 Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., 90 Archer Street, San Jose, California 95112 Tony Guzzardo, Guzzardo and Associates, 836 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94133 Bob Berman, Nichols-Berman, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, California 94110 George Mader, Planning Department, Town of Portola Valley, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, California 94028 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services, 660 South Fairoaks Avenue, Sunnyvale, California West Bay Sanitary District, 500 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, California 94025-3486 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5740 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California 951 !0-3686; Att~ention: Richard Andersen Camas Hubenthal, The Committee for Green Foothills, Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 East Bayshore Boulevard, Palo Alto, California 94303 Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, 1024 Emerson, Palo Alto, California 94301 Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. Attn: Richard Andersen Ted Vian, President, Portola Valley Ranch Homeowners Association, #2 Sandhill, Portola Valley, California 94028 Elaine Kay, Portola Valley Ranch Association, #1 Indian Crossing, Portola Valley, California 94028 Diana and Pierre Fischer, # 10 Valley Oak Street Portola Valley, California 94028 Linda Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, California 94028 Nancy Strauss, 635 Los Trancos Road, Portola Valley, California 94028 Terilyn Langsev-Burt, # 1 Wmtercreek, Portola Valley, California 94028 John Baca, P.O. Box 8527, Palo Alto, California 94309-8527 Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Drive, Palo Alto, California 94306 Virginia Bacon, 205 Golden Oak Drive, Portola Valley, California 94028 CMR:132:98 Page 14 of 14 City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 15, 1997 CMR:496:97. LOS TRANCOS ROAD (ARRILLAGA LANDS); APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE MAP WITH REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBDIVISION OF 151.41 ACRES INTO EIGHT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE 81-ACRE+ PRIVATE OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREA PARCEL (City File Nos: 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190 and 94-EIA-31). RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Certify the Los Trancos Road Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate. This recommendation is based on the Planning Commission’s fmding (August 15, 1997) that a) the Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (DEIR) was adequately prepared and b) the FEIR respond to all comments on the DEIR, and include the assessment of an additional project alternative (8-lot clustered variation). Denythe Tentative Map based on the fmdings presented in Attachment 2B of this report. The staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and making the fmdings, including a Statement of Ovemding Consideration (Attachment 1E) and approval of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan (Attachmen~ 12). Approve the Tentative Map and conditional exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210, permitting a portion of the main access road to be developed with a grade CMR:496:97 Page 1 of 14 in excess of 15 percent and PAMC Section 21.28.020, permitting a reduction in the required road right-of-way and pavement width, as outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated November 12, 1997, based on the fmdings presented in Attachment 2, and the Architectural Review Board findings presented in Attachment 2A and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3, including the additional revisions to the design and layout of the map, as generally depicted in Attachment 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In summary, the project proposes the subdivision of 151.41 acres into eight single-family residential lots and one 81.59-acre parcel for permanent, private open space/common area use. The property is located in the Palo Alto foothills and is subject to the provisions of the OS (Open Space) District. The OS District permits a maximum density of 10 acres per trait. The subdivision proposes a density of one unit per 18.9 acres of gross land area. A detailed discussion of the proposed subdivision and information on the site and setting are provided on pages 2 through 12 of the attached Planning Commission staff report. A schematic of the subdivision layout is provided in Attachment 1B of this report and in the full-size plans (Tentative Map and civil notes, dated September 1997) distributed to the Council Members. The description and plans discussed in the staff report represent the Tentative Map revisions that were filed with the City in September 1997. A brief summary of primary project components and information outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report is provided as follows: Residential lots. Residential lots are proposed to range in size from 4.91 to 11.60 acres. encompass 66 acres of the subject property (44.8 percent of the site). site/envelope area has been identified for each lot. These lots A building Proposed Open Space (Lot 9). The map proposes an 81.59 acre parcel designated as private open space/common area. This parcel represents 53.7 percent of the total site area and encompasses a majority of the sloped hillside areas along the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The parcel is proposed to be owned and maintained by the association of homeowners within the subdivision. Access and Circulation. The subdivision is proposed to be served by a 24-foot-wide, private road with access from Los Trancos Road. This road is proposed to be approximately 2,800 feet in length, terminating at a cul-de-sac. Portions of this road follow the alignment of an existing, graded fire road and are proposed to exceed the City’s 15 percent road grade CMR:496:97 Page 2 of 14 limit. An emergency vehicle access road is alignment of an existing, graded fire road. also proposed,which follows the Utilities and Services. The subject property is located within the City of Palo Alto but located outside of the City’s Urban Service Area boundaries. Water and electrical services are proposed to. be provided by the City. A water tank is proposed to be constructed at the southeast end of the site (on Lot 9). Gas service is proposed to be provided by PG & E. The subdivision proposes that each lot be served by an individual, septic system and an accompanying leachfield. Other significant project details that are outlined in the attached staff report include information on grading (cut and fill amounts), impervious surface coverage, draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (copies provided to Council Members with plans/maps), dedications and the BMR housing proposal. SUMMARY OF BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission Review On July 30, 1997 and August 12, 1997, the Planning Commission completed a first phase review of this project. The first phase addressed the adequacy of the DEIR that had been prepared for this project..Following DEIR comments from the public and the Commission, the Planning Commission, on a 6-0 vote, recommended that the staff proceed with an FEIR/Response to Comments. The Commission also requested that the FEIR include an assessment of an additional project alternative. The minutes for these two meetings are incorporated in the FEIR. The FEIR was prepared and provided to the Planning Commission for information in reviewing the proposed Tentative Map and conditional exception requests. On November 12, 1997, the Planning Commission voted (5-1-1) to recommend to the City Council, denial of the Tentative Map and the conditional exception requests. The Planning Co .mmission meeting minutes are transmitted separately to the Council. A summary of the Planning Commission comments and reasons for recommending denial of the Tentative Map is provided as follows: The Plapming Commission found that the required findings could not be made to approve the Tentative Map. Approval of the Tentative Map requires that the City make five fmdings (Subdivision Map Act Section 66474), which include the following: A fmding that the project is consistent with the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan and CMR:496:97 Page 3 of 14, bo That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development. The Planning Commission found that the proposed map would not be fully consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Commission found that the map would not be consistent with Policy 4 and Policy 11 of the Open Space Element because of the following reasons: The Planning Commission found that the Tentative Map, as designed, would be inconsistent with Policy 4 of the Open Space Element, in that the proposed improvements would not be located in a manner that would fully protect scenic areas. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that the subdivision, as proposed, and as recommended for further revisions by staff (outlined in attached Planning Commission staff report), would result in the development of homes and the establishment of building envelope locations that would be highly visible from off-site. The Commission concluded that the recommended locations for building envelopes would not fully protect the scenic resources of the site. The Planning Commission found that the Tentative Map, as designed, would be inconsistent with Policy 11 of the Open Space Element, in that the proposed subdivision layout and design would not result in maximum protection of open space. Policy 11 encourages residential developments to provide the maximum amotmt of open space that is a) consistent, with the needs of the residents and b) economically feasible. The Planning Commission found that the subdivision, as proposed, and as recommended for further revisions by staff (outlined in attached Planning Commission staff report), would not provide the maximum amount of permanent open space that could be feasibly protected through approval of a subdivision on this site. These conclusions represent the one major difference between the Comprehensive Plan findings of the Planning Commission and the staff.. While staff concluded that, with additional recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map, the project would protect scenic areas (consistency with Policy 4), the Commission did not agree with this conclusion. The Commission noted that the staff recommendations to cluster building envelopes in areas of open grassland area (along the property hilltop) would not fully protect scenic resources. Furthermore, while staff found that the project would.be consistent with Policy 11, as it would result in 54 percent of the site being protected in permanent open space, the Commission did not agree that this was the maximum amount ofopen space that could be preserved through approval of this subdivision. In reviewing this issue, the Commission did not consider that, with the recording of building envelopes for all of the lots (a recommendation presented in the attached staff report and in Attachment 3, draft CMR:496:97 Page 4 of 14 o conditions of approval), most of the individual lot areas would be limited to "passive recreation/private open space use". By combining the land area of lot 9 (81+ acres of Private Open Space/Common Area parcel) with the "passive recreation/private open space" use areas for each lot, over 90 percent of the site could conceivably be preserved in permanent open space. Secondly, the Commission found that the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single-family development, in that the proposed lots are not sized and configured to result in a tight clustering pattern, as required by the OS (Open Space) District. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed subdivision does not respect the physical conditions of the site, in that: The residential lots are not appropriately arranged and located to provide the maximum amount of development clustering and open space that can be achieved on this site, and The proposed building areas would not result in the optimum protection of scenic areas, nor provide maximum screening of development from off site. The Planning Commission fmdings for recommendation of denial of the Tentative Map are provided in Attachment 2B of this report. The Planning Commission found that, although the staff recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (as discussed in the attached Planning Commission staffreport and generally depicted in Attachment 4) would be an improvement over the proposed Tentative Map, these recommendations do not go far enough at: a) protecting the site’s scenic resources by screening the development from off-site, b) providing the maximum amount of open space that can be achieved, or c) providing a tighter clustering, as required by the OS District. The Planning Commission found that project Altemative 5, which is presented and analyzed in the FEIR/Response to Comments (8-lot clustered variation alternative, discussed in Alternatives section of this report) is the superior project design for this site. A map of Alternative 5 is provided in Attachment 1C of this report. The Commission concluded that Alternative 5 would result in a greater amount of open space, would provide a tight clustering and maximum screening of development and reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage. The Planning Commission also found that, if the design and layout of the map were revised to be consistent with Alternative 5, the Commissions could make the necessary fmdings to approve the Tentative Map. CMR:496:97 Page 5 of 14 ’ Several of the Commissioners expressed concern about the proposed density, finding that development of fewer residential lots would go ft~xther at reducing project visibility and increasing the amount of open space that could be protected. The Planning Commission agreed that if the City Council were to approve the Tentative Map, or if a new map is filed in the future, approval should include the additional conditions recommended by one of the public speakers (Linda Elkind, Portola Valley resident). Ms. Elkind’s comments and recommendations for additional conditions are summarized in the Planning Commission minutes. Please note that Attachment 3 (recommended Tentative Map conditions of approval) has been amended to incorporate these additional, recommended conditions. These amendments are The Planning Commission public hearing included testimony from 15 members of the public. This testimony is provided in the Planning Commission minutes. While many of the speakers expressed support for the staff-recommended changes to the design and layout of the Tentative Map, they did not agree with the recommended building envelope locations ~ecommended by staff (locations generally depicted in Attachment 4). These speakers expressed support of a subdivision design consistent with the FEIR Alternative 5 (8-lot clustered variation alternative, see Attachment 1C). Architectural Review Board Recommendations Typically, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) does not review Tentative Maps for the subdivision of land. However, per PAMC Section 16.48.050c (Architectural Review, Applicability), the ARB is required to review and make recommendations on the subdivision improvements for this project, as it is located within the OS District. The ARB is required to review the design and grading for the main access road and emergency access road, the proposed water tank and the proposed on-site stormwater detention basin (between lots 1 and 2). The authority of the ARB, in this case, does not extend to the design of the residential lots or open space, the lotting pattern, the location or size of building envelopes or assessment of project density. On November 6, 1997, the ARB, on a 4-0 vote, recommended conditional approval of the subdivision’ improvements, as recommended in the attached Planning Commission staff report., This recommendation was based on the Architectural Review fmdings presented in Attachment 2A and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3 of this staff report. Minutes from the ARB meeting of November 6 are presented in Attachment 11 of this report. Project Sponsor Response to.......Recommendations Presented in Planning Commission Staff In response to the recommendations presented in the Planning Commission staff report, the project sponsor presented some additional changes to the design and layout of the subdivision at the Planning Commission hearing. These additional changes were not CMR:496:97 Page 6 of 14 formally .submitted to the City until after the Planning Commission’s review and recommendations on the Tentative Map. The additional map changes are presented in Attachment 1D, which includes a graphic and a letter (Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., November 24, 1997) outlining the modifications. The map changes are briefly described as follows: The road grading along the main access road has been modified to eliminate a large fill bank near the main access road entrance, reduce the amount of tree removal and reduce road grades. Along the hilltop, the main access road has been realigned to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. The on-site detention basin, initially proposed between lots 1 and 2 has been eliminated. The emergency access road has been realigned, avoiding an area of heavy tree cover. Lot 8 has been reduced from 11.6 acres to 9.64 acres in size. The location of the proposed building envelope areas has been adjusted. The envelope area for lot 7 has been relocated to an open grassland area between lots 6 and 8. This relocation was necessary because of the realignment of the main access road. Staff has reviewed the additional map revisions presented in Attachment 1D and provides the following comments! The revised grades along the main access road wouldreduce the amount of cut and fill banks and would reduce tree remoVal. However, the grading design would not fully address recommendations to incorporate retaining walls (per recommended conditions of approval presented in Attachment 3 of this report). The realignment of the main access road and emergency access road and the reduction in the size of lot 8 would be consistent with the staff recommendations presented in the attached Planning Commission staff report. With the exception of the building envelope area for lot 7, it appears that the building envelope areas are generally in the same locations that are presented on the September 1997 revised Tentative Map. Not all building envelope locations would be consistent with the staff recommendations to group building envelopes close to the main access road. The envelope areas, as revised, would not respond to the Planning Commission’s concerns for a "tighter cluster" of development. However, the revisions propose to place two building envelopes (for lots 2 and 3) in areas that are immediately adjacent to oak woodland. While long driveways would be necess .ary CMR:496:97 Page 7 of 14 to accommodate access to these envelopes, their locations would be partially screened by the adjacent oak woodland. The visual impacts of this map revision would be a combination of the alternatives studied in the project EIR. The visual impacts of the map revisions are represented in several of the computer-generated visual simulations presented in the DEIR and described as follows: The visibility of the proposed building sites on lots 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 would be generally the same as the 8-lot clustered alternative (Alternative 3, see Exhibits 6.3-2 through 6.3-4 on pages 6.0-11 through 6.0-13 of the DEIR),and generally the same as the 8-lot dispersed alternative (Alternative 4, see Exhibits 6.4-2 through 6.4-4 on pages 6.0-18 through 6.0-20 of the DEIR). bo The visibility of the proposed building site for lot 2 would be the same as the 8-lot dispersed alternative (Alternative 4, see Exhibits 6.4-2 through 6.4-4 on pages 6.0-18 through 6.0-20 of the DEIR). The visibility of the proposed building site for lot 3 would be same as the originally proposed Tentative Map, which is presented in Exhibits 5.8-4 through 5.8-17 of the DEIR (pages.5.8-8 through 5.8-21). The visibility of the proposed building site for lot 7 be the same as the 8-lot clustered alternative (Alternative 3, Exhibits 6.3-2 through 6.3-4, on pages 6.0- 11 through 6.0-13). °The drainage and hydrological impacts of the map revisions would be a combination of the proposed project and the 8-lot clustered alternative. The realignment of the main access road would direct most runoff away from sub-watershed 3 into sub- watershed 2. Some additional runoff is expected from proposed building sites and driveways for lots 2 and 3. However, the on-site detention basin would not need to be constructed, provided that driveways for lots 1-4 are constructed with a porous, permeable material. ALTERNATIVES The project DEIR (Section 6) and the FEIRJResponse to Comments documents present and analyze a number of project alternatives. These alternatives include: 1) a No-Development (No Project) alternative (Alternative 1), 2) a 15-lot clustered alternative (Alternative 2), 3) an 8-lot clustered alternative (Alternative 3), 4) an 8-lot dispersed alternative (Alternative 4) and 5) an 8-lot clustered variation alternative (Alternative 5). A description of these alternatives is provided on pages 34 and 35 of the attached Planning Commission staff report (following Attachment 4). CMR:496:97 Page 8 of 14 Alternative 1 (No Development), Altemative 3 (8-lot clustered) and Alternative 5 (8-lot clustered variation) equally represent the environmentally superior alternative. While Alternative 5 (8-lot cluster variation) would clearly reduce the visual impacts of development from adjacent Portola Valley properties, this alternative would result in additional tree removal (necessary for construction of homes, private driveways and individual septic leachfields). As part of the Planning Commission’s review of the proposed map, the Commission expressed support for a Subdivision design similar to Alternative 5. The Commission found that Alternative 5 provides: 1) a tighter cluster of development which allows an increase in open space,, and 2) better protection of scenic resources as most of the development would be nestled within areas of heavy vegetation. A map depicting the Alternative 5 subdivision design is presented in Attachment 1C. The staff recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map that are outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report would be most similar to Alternative 3, the 8-lot cluster alternative, assessed in the DEIR. The recommended revisions to the map include realignment of the main access road and clustering building envelope areas closer to the access road. It should be noted that the only difference between design and layout of Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 is the location of the building envelope areas. Both alternatives share the same recommended main access and emergency access road alignment. The project sponsor’s recent revisions to the map (revisions presented to the Pianning Commission and discussed above) represent a combination of both Alternative 3 (8-lot clustered alternative) and Alternative 4 (8-lot dispersed alternative). Although the main access road would be realigned to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road, building envelope locations would be more dispersed than both Alternatives 3 and 5. Therefore, these map revisions would not represent an environmentally superior alternative. RESOURCE IMPACT The project involves a subdivision of land for construction of eight, new single-family dwellings. These dwelling units would generate property taxes. The residential dwelling units would also generate school impact fees, as required by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). POLICY IMPLICATIONS As outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report of November 12, 1997, (pages 13 - 16), the proposed subdivision has been reviewed for consistency with the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An assessment of pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies is also presented in Section 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for this project. The assessment presented in the attached staff report concludes that the project, as recommended with revisions to the design and layout of the map (generally depicted in Attachment 4), would be consistent with all pertinent City policies, programs and provisions. As noted above, the Planning Commission did not concur with this CMR:496:97 Page 9 of 14 summary, fmding that the proposed subdivision design and layout would not be consistent with Policies 4 and 7 of the Open Space Element (see discussion above). The attached Planning Commission staff report also provides a summary of project review for consistency with the City’s Open Space Development Criteria and a review for compliance with the Town of Portola Valley Design Guidelines (see page 16 of attached staff report and Attachments 5A and 5B). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In 1996, staff completed an Environmental Assessment, which concluded that the proposed subdivision had the potential to result in significant environmental effects. A Notice of Preparation was distributed (required 30-day public review) recommending that an Environmental Impact Report be completed. A public scoping session was held in August 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed in May 1997. The City observed a 45-day public review period from June 9, 1997 to July 28, 1997. On July 30, 1997 and August 15, 1997, the Planning Commission completed a first review of the project, which included a hearing on the adequacy of the DEIR. Following review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission recommended that staff proceed with the preparation of a Final E!R/Response to Comments (FEIR). The Planning Commission recommended that the FEIR include the preparation and analysis of an additional "clustered" project alternative. A Response to Comments document has been completed. Thi~ document includes the following information: The additional project alternative (Alternative 5) requested by the Planning Commission. Alternative 5 is based on the Santa Clara County Hillside Cluster Provisions (Santa Clara County Zouing Ordinance, Article 14, Section 6). Consistent with these provisions, this alternafivoe reduces lot sizes, which in total, cover 10 -percent of the total land area (15 acres). The remaining 90 percent of the land (136 acres) would be placed in permanent, common open space. This alternative is presented in Attachment 1C. Assessment of impacts associated with the development of a water tank (up to 200,000 gallon) and tank access on lot 9 (private open space/common area parcel). A Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan for tracking implementation of required mitigation measures (Attachment 12). The Response to Comments document was forwarded, by mail, to all parties that submitted written comments on the DEIR. In addition, this document was made available to the CMR:496:97 Page 10 of 14 Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for information and assistance in reviewing the project merits. The FEIR (Response to Comments document together with the DEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan) has the assessed all potential environmental impacts of the project. The FEIR concludes that the project will result in significant impacts that can be ’ mitigated to less-than-significant levels. However, the FEIR finds that there are four significant, unavoidable impacts for which there is no mitigation. It should be noted that three of these impacts are cumulative and are not project-related. The project’s incremental contribution to these cumulative impacts is so negligible that it cannot be quantified. The fourth significant, unavoidable impact is a short-term impact associated with construction activities of the project. These impacts are as follows: Impact 5.6-12, Cumulative Tree Loss. Approval of the project in conjunction with the development of other projects in the area would result in the incremental loss of trees and other assorted wildlife. Impact 5.6-13, Cumulative Loss of Nesting or Roosting Habitat. Approval of the project, in conjunction with the development of other projects in the area, would result in the incremental loss of trees, which could result in the incremental loss of eggs or nestlings and roosting areas for birds. o Impact 5.6-14, Cumulative Loss of Non-Native Grassland. Approval of the project, in conjunction with the other projects in or adjacent to the San Francisquito Creek watershed would result in the loss of non-native grassland. impact 5.8-9, Short-Term Visual Impacts. Project construction would result in a temporary visual disturbance of the site. In addition, views of the development would be significant until vegetation matures. It should be noted that these significant, unavoidable effects would not be reduced to less- than-significant levels through approval of any of the alternatives assessed in the FEIR. Consistent with Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act, approval of a. project that results in significant, unavoidable effects requires that the City make a Statement of Overriding Consideration. The purpose of this statement is to balance the benefits of the project against these impacts and may approve the project if the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The FEIR has been prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City’s environmental review guidelines. The document adequately assesses all potential environmental effects and presents reasonable mitigation measures. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council certify the FEIR prior to taking action on the Tentative Map. A draft resolution has been prepared, which includes fmdings for CMR:496:97 Page 11 of 14 certification of the FEIR and a Statement of Overriding Consideration. This draft resolution is provided in Attachment 1E. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Should the City Council deny the Tentative Map as recommended by the Planning Commission, no further action is necessary or required. Should the City Council approved the Tentative Map and the request for conditional exceptions from the PANIC Sections 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (SubdivisionOrdinance), the project sponsor would.be required to prepare a Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Plans, as well as necessary subdivision agreements. The Final Map would require the approval of the City Council, prior to recordation with the County of Santa Clara. Some of the components of the Subdivision Improvement Plans (fmal road design, retaining wall details, tree replanting program and final design and color or water tank) would require final review by the Architectural Review Board, prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. Each single-family lot would be subject to Site and Design Review, which requires review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. If the subdivision is approved, permits and/or approvals will or may be required by the following agencies: 1.County of Santa Clara Department of Health Services (individual septic systems). Santa Clara Valley Water District (all construction work within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek). 3.Cal EPA- Regional Water Quality Control Board 4.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5.California Department of Fish and Game ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 1A: Original/Initial Tentative Map Attachment 1B: Proposed (Revised) Tentative Map Attachment 1 C: Alternative 5, 8-lot Cluster Variation Alternative Attachment 1D: Letter and graphic from project sponsor (Mark Thomas and Company, Inc. and Gazzardo and Associates), November 24, 1997 Attachment 1E: Resolution certifying the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report and Findings, including a Statement of Overriding Consideration CMR:496:97 Page 12 of 14 Attachment 2: Attachment 2A: ¯ Attachment 2B: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 5A: Attachment 5B: Attachment 6: Draft Findings for Approval of the Tentative Map and Conditional Exceptions Draft Findings for Architectural Review of Proposed Subdivision Improvements Findings for Denial of the Tentative Map, as recommended by the Planning Commission Draft Conditions of Approval Map/graphics presenting recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map, consistent with recommended conditions of approval Planning Commission Staff Report, November 12, 1997, which includes the following attachments: Review of revised Tentative Map for consistency with City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria Review of revised Tentative Map for consistency with pertinent Portola Valley Design Guidelines Letter from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo Alto to John Anillaga, property owner, outlining the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement; June 2, 1997 and signed by property owner on October 20, 1997.¯ Attachment T:Table comparing the proposed subdivision with neighboring developments (existing and approved). Attachment 8: Arborist Report/Tree Inventory Attachment 9:Letter from United Soil Engineering, Inc. To John Amllaga regarding alternative slope stabilization measures; October 13, 1997 Attachment 10: Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, November 6, 1997 Attachment 11: Letter from Clearwater Hydrology to Nichols-Berman, EIR consultants regarding downstream flooding and hydrology along Buckeye Creek; November 11, 1997. Attachment 12: Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan Correspondence - written comments and letters from agencies, organizations, special interest groups, neighboring residents and property owners Tentative Map, Plans and Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions [Council Members only] Attachment 4, full-size set [Council Members only] PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:496:97 Page 13 of 14 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City Manager CC:John Arrillaga, Perry and Arrillaga, 2650 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 101, Santa Clara, California 95054-1291 Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., 90 Archer Street, San Jose, California 95112 Tony Guzzardo, Guzzardo and Associates, 836 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94133 Bob Berman, Nichols-Berman, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, California 94110 George Mader, Planning Department, Town of Portola Valley, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, California 94028 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services, 660 South Fairoaks Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94086 West Bay Sanitary District, 500 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, California 94025-3486 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5740 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California 95110-3686; Attention: Richard Andersen Camas Hubenthal; The Committee for Green Foothills, Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 East Bayshore Boulevard, Palo Alto, California 94303 Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, 1024 Emerson, Palo Alto, California 94301 Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. Atm: Richard Andersen Ted Vian, President, Portola Valley Ranch Homeowners Association, 2 Sunhill, Portola Valley, California 94028 Elaine Kay, Portola Valley Ranch Association, 1 Indian Crossing, Portola Valley, California 94028 Diana and Pierre Fischer, 10 Valley Oak Street Portola Valley, California 94028 Linda Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, California 94028 Nancy Strauss, 635 Los Trancos Road, Portola Valley, California 94028 Terilyn Langsev-Burt, 1 Wintercreek, Portola Valley, California 94028 John Baca, P.O. Box 8527, Palo Alto, California 94309-8527 Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Drive, Palo Alto, California 94306 Virginia Bacon, 205 Golden Oak Drive, Portola Valley, California 94028 CMR:496:97 Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENT 1 Town of Portola Valley pEP, SlIP, VIi PF(D) PF Tranzos I~oad, south of Alpine P,,oaa (APN#: 18,2-46-010) PF ITo Skyline Blvd I I FOOTHI.LLS PARK Graphic Attachment Date: July 30, 1997 9~-EIA-31 Scale: 1 inch=1500 FT Road’,\ ATTACHMENT 1A Initial Tentative Map Map Layout and Design (as initially filed in 1994) ! / Roa~ \ ii Pro Water Tank e Building site ATTACHMENT 1B Revised Tentative Map Map Layout and Design (filed September 1997) N 1 inch ,,, 450 feet \ Proposed Private Open Space/Common Area ATTACHMENT 1C Final EIR Project Alternative #5: 8-lot Clustered Variation Alternative Prepared based on Santa Clara County Hillside Cluster Provisions (Santa Clara Zoning Ordiance, Article 14, Section 6) Development/lots clustere~d on 15 acres (10%) of land .1.! , Scale: 1 Inch = 450 feet MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & .MUNICIPAL PLANNERS 90 ARCHER STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112 PHONE (408) 453-5373 ¯ FAX (408) 453-5390 PRINCIPALS SAM J, ZULLO RICHARD K. TANAKA PHILLIP R, SAVIO TIMOTHY R, FLEMING DAVID E, ROSS MICHAEL J. LOHMAN November 24, 1997 ATTACHMENT 1D File No. 94045 #35 Mr. Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Planning Department City of Palo Alto. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: Lands of Arrillaga, Los Trancos Road Subdivision Dear Mr. Jensen: RECEIVED N 0V 2 6 1997 DEPARIMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVF.~OPMENT As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on November 12, 1997, we have prepared the enclosed Revised Tentative Map, dated November 1997, incorporating those revisions requested in the Final EIR, and staff recommendations to the Planning Commission, dated November 12, 1997, more particularly described as follows: 1. Revisions to grading of main access road. Entrance road alignment and road grades have been revised as requested to reduce the slope bank height and tree removal. 2.Revisions to alignment of main access road along the hilltop. As shown, the road alignment along the hill top was revised to align with the graded fire road with the relocation of lot lines to accommodate the shift, as requested. 3.Revisions to the alignment and grades of the emergency access road. Refer to the third paragraph on Page 20. The emergency access road is realigned to commence at the cul-de-sac minimizing tree removal. Grades are modified to 15% max. 4.Require measures for screening proposed water tank. Refer to Condition 6 on Page 26. Agree to earth tone color and partially buried tank. 5.Reduce size of Lot 8 to less than 10 acres. Lot 8 reduced in size to 9.64 acres, as shown. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSESSMENT DISTR~CTS SITE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARKS SURVEYING ~ONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND INSPECTION HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE SPECIAL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT Mr. Paul Jensen November 24, 1997 Page 2 of 2 6.Define and record building envelopes for each residential lot. Building envelopes are shown on the Tentative Map. In summary, the Tentative Map attached incorporates all revisions requested in the DEIR and staff recommendations, with the exception of a suggested shift in the building sites shown for Lots 2 and 3. Except as noted, we support staff recommendations and request approval of the Tentative Map as revised. Delivered under separate cover are 15 sets of full Size plans. Sincerely, MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. mjt enclosures copy:John Arrillaga, Peery & Arrillaga Anthony Guzzardo, Guzzardo & Associates Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto <0 ATTACHMENT 1E RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OFT HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE LOS TRANCOS ROAD SUBDIVISION FINAL EIR AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Background. Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, follows: The City Council of the City of determines, and declares as A. Sam zulIo, Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., for John Arrillaga ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Project ("Project"). The Project consists of the subdivision of a 151.41 acre parcel, into 8 single-family residential lots, with building envelopes to cover 6,300 square feet per lot; proposed access via improvements to an existing graded road and emergency access road; electricity and water provided by the City, with an on-site water distribution system, stormwater drainage facilities, and individual leachfields for wastewater disposal. The development approvals required~ for the Project include a Tentative Subdivision Map, conditional exceptions for the Palo Alto Municipal Code Subdivision Ordinance, A~chitectural Review approval for the Project’s public infrastructure, and Site and Design review for each residence. B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "Los Trancos Road Subdivision Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1997"; "Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report, October 1997", and the planning and other City records~ minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is onfile in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting-the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed on July I0, 1996, and an amended Notice of Preparation wa~ distributed on July 29, 1996. A scoping meeting was held on August 15, 1996. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between June 9, 1997-July~28, 1997. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR July 30, 1997; and Planning Commission review on August 13, 1997. The ARB conducted a meeting on the project on 9"/1208 lac 0080617 November 6, 1997. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Project on November 12, 1997. D. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant~ to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which program is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings, including but not limited to testimony received by the Council during the , 199__~ public hearing on the Project and responses by staff during that public hearing. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant’ before considering for approval the various actions related to the Los Trancos Road Subdivision project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. SECTION 3 Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Siqnificant Level. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the Project in regard to Land Use and Planning; Geology and Soils; Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality; Air Quality; Traffic and On-Site Circulation; Biotic Resources; Utilities and Services/Fire Hazards; Aesthetics and Visual Impacts; Cultural Resources; and Recreation and Open Space. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below. This follows Public Resources Code section 21081(a) (I) which allows for findings stating that for each significant effect "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized below is more fully described in the Final EIR. A. Land Use and. planning Impact 5.1-3 concerns visual impacts created by the incompatibility of land uses. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.8-1 to 5.8-8. 971208 lac 0080617 2 B. Geology and Soils Impact 5.2~i concerns impacts created by landslide movements, which could potentially risk human life, damage or destroy homes,~ and block or damage roadways and escape routes° This impact will be mitigated~to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Perform slope stability~ analysis and evaluate landslides and unstable areas, mitigate if necessary consistent with the recommendations in the FEIR. Impact 5.2-2 concerns grading impacts that car~ create secondary visual and air quality impacts. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and~ Design approval: Hydroseed, dispose of trash, spray cut areas water, erosion control mitigations, replace trees and vegetation, protect nesting or roosting birds, reduce construction dust, visual mitigations° Impact 5.2-3 concerns unstable slopes that could affect access roads, building areas, and create erosion. Thi~ impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Evaluate slopes for stability, design cut slopes with erosion and drainage control, install terrace drains as necessary. Impact 5.2-4 concerns rockfall that could damage structures and roadwaysoand injure people. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-’significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Evaluate rockfall potential and repair as necessary. Impact 5.2-5 concerns expansive soils, which could damage development by cyclic shrinking and swelling of the soil. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Perform plasticity or expansion index testing, and treat soil as necessary. Design residential development on individual lots to account for each site’s expansive soils. Impact 5.2-6 concerns groundwater impacts, ~which can destabilize structures if not adequately drained. This.impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Provide all earthen and mechanical retaining structures with adequate drainage to prevent failure under hydrostatic loads. Impact 5.2-7 concerns seismicity impacts. Seismic shaking is expected to occur on the site some time during the life of the development and could induce landsliding. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact’ by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.2-1 (to mitigate landslide impacts), design and build structures with Palo Alto and ~71208 la~ 0080617 UBC standards, require third party review by an engineering geologist. Impact 5.2-8 concerns areas of artificial fill, which could result in non-uniform settlement or excessive erosion. This impact will be mitigated to~ a less-than-significant impact by the following mitigation as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Mitigation Measure’ 5.3-4[a] requires realignment of the project access roadway, removal of the existing drainageway fill, and restoration of the pre-fill topography and drainageway (Mitigation Measure 5.3-4[b]). Also implement Mitigation Measure 5.2-i(a). Impact 5.2-12 concerns on-site leachfields, which could result in slope failure and groundwater contamination. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following mitigation as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-6. (Relocate leachfields or determine engineered solutions, as required by the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Services.) Co ~ydrology, D~ainage, and Water Quality Impact 5.3-2 concerns site peak flow rates. Project grading, construction of impervious surfaces, and installation of storm drains will result in a significant increase in downstream peak flow rates from Sub-watershed 3. These increases would affect the performance of the roadway culvert under the Strauss property access road and increase the frequency of roadway overtopping during significant rainstorms. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition.of Tentative Map approval: Utilize the existing roadway alignment and eliminate the proposed roadway diversion through the fill zone. Impact 5.3-3 concerns downstream flooding. ’The construction of a stormwater detention basin in Sub-watershed 3 would introduce a possibility, albeit slight, for embankment failure and release of a large pulse of stored water downstream and onto the Strauss property during a severe rainstorm. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-2(b) by utilizing the existing roadway alignment and eliminating the proposed roadway diversion through the fill zone. Impact 5.3-4 concerns downstream erosion and sedimentation. Grading and construction activities would expose large areas of ground to erosion from raindrop impact and overland impact. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-2(b). Obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (GCASP) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 971208 lac 0080617 4 Impact 5.3-6 concerns leachfield impacts on surface water quality. Installation of septic leachfields at building sites for Lots 1 and 8 would result in a potentially significant increase in the risk of leachfield failure and surfacing of contaminated effluent during severe rainstorms in wet winters. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Either Relocate the leachfield sites on Lots 1 and 8 to other nearby areas where land slopes are less than 20 percent or conduct site-specific engineering studies for Leachfields 1 and 8 to determine special design features that would ensure against leachfield failure as required by the Santa Clara County Department of EnvirOnmental Health Services. Impact 5.3-7 concerns cumulative downstream erosion and sedimentation impacts. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other projects in the area, would result in grading and construction that could increase downstream erosion and sedimentation in the San Francisquito Creek~watershed. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures: Local jurisdictions shall obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (GCASP) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for proposed projects. Prior to issuing grading permits for construction activities~ local jurisdictions shall ensure that project applicants include BMP~s in construction contracts implementing the requirements of NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit #CAS029718 in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Impa~ 5.3-8 concerns cumulative surface water flows. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other projects in the area would increase impervious surfaces, which in turn would cumulatively increase the peak rates and volumes of surface runoff, potentially increasing the frequency and severity of existing downstream flooding in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-2(b). Impact 5.3-9 concerns cumulative water quality. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other projects in the area would increase urban contaminants in surface runoff, potentially reducing water quality. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-7. D. Air .Quality Impact 5.4~i concerns construction period air impacts. During construction of the site surrounding areas could be impacted by construction dust. This impact will ~be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Earthmoving construction should not encompass more than 230,000 971208 la~ 0080617 5 square feet (5.3 acres) in one day. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Use tarpaulins or other effect covers for ~on-site storage piles and for haul trucks. Use water stabilizers. Sweep streets. Cover trucks. Install sandbags. Implement BAAQMD mitigations if working area exceeds four acres a ~dayo E. Traffic and On-Site Circulation Impact 5.5-3 concerns project access and internal circulation° The main access road (Tierra Arboles), emergency access road, and conceptual driveways would exceed acceptable road grades, the emergency access road would not meet acceptable road widths, Tierra Arboles does not include turnouts, and parking has not been determined for individual homes. These could create emergency access problems. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval and the Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.5-3(a) (2) by revising road grades of Tierra Arboles to 15~percent with no more than 18 percent for one 400 foot 10ng portion of the roadway. The emergency access road should be revised to a maximum grade of 15 percent, and aligned to avoid tree loss. Driveway grades should be no more than 15 percent. For Emergency Access Road, provide turnouts, widen in areas when possible given physical conditions, strengthen shoulders, provide advisory signage and edge markers, and develop Emergency Evacuation Plan. Provide turnouts and ban parking on Tierra Arboles. Provide six parking spaces for each home. Impact 5.5-5 Concerns driveway site lines. Future driveway alignments could result in inadequate sight-lines. This impact will be mitigated to a less-~than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Site and Design approval: Sufficient horizontal and vertical sight distances should be maintained in all directions at the intersections of project driveways with Tierra Arboles. Impact 5.5-6 concerns on-site pedestrian pathways. On-site pedestrian pathways are not included in the project, which can lead to pedestrian safety concerns. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Incorporate on-site pedestrian pathways. Impact 5.5-7 concerns construction traffic. Construction traffic could interfere with peak traffic operations. Parking on Los Trancos Road could interfere with traffic operations. Construction traffic could damage Los TrancoS Road. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: All fill haul trucks should be limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM operation to minimize construction vehicle impacts during peak traffic hours. Construction vehicle parking should be prohibited along Los Trancos Road. 971208 lac 0080617 6 F. Biotic Resources Impact 5.6-7 concerns Los Trancos Creek Water Quality. Cut-and-fill grading associated with the proposed project could result in significant sheet and gully erosion in exposed soils. Sediment could also be carried by winter runoff in seasonal drainages to Los Trancos Creek, possibly degrading aquatic habitat. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Install straw bales~and stormwater detention basin; implement Mitigation Measure 5.3-4 to reduce downstream erosion and sedimentation impacts; protect bare surfaces~ locate construction staging areas away from sensitive habitat. Impact 5.6-8 concerns tree loss. The project will.require the removal of as many as 196 to 290 trees (not including those lost for ancillary structures and other developed uses), many of ordinance-size, from the project site. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Relocate a portion of the emergency access road; relocate leachfields in Lots 2 and 3 to avoid wooded areas; individual homeowners shall align driveways and design homes to minimize damage to trees; native trees of more than 11.5" in diameter removed for the project shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 on a per acre basis by the same species from locally collected stock (grown from seeds collected on site if possible); non-native trees shall be. replaced on a two-to-one ratio, similar to above; meet regulations of City’s Tree Ordinance; identify trees outside of construction zones by flagging; implement other construction-related mitigations specified in the EIR. Impact 5.6-9 concerns nesting or roosting habitat loss. Construction activities during project implementation could result in incidental loss of eggs or nestlings or in nest abandonment by birds of prey protected by Federal and State statutes. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Before construction, a qualified ornithologist shall inspect the project site. Tree removal shall not take place between February 15 and June 30, or as determined by the CDFG or the project ornithologist. Exclusion zones will be established around each active nest. Impact 5.6-10 concerns introduction of invasive exotic plants to the.site. Future residential landscapingmay introduce exotic plants to the site which are capable of naturalizing in native habitats and reducing the diversity of native plants of the site. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: A qualified biologist or horticulturist shall prepare a list of all exotic plants known to readily naturalize in habitats similar to those found in the project site. Species on this list should not be used. 7 §71208 lac 0080617 G. Utilities and Services/Fire Hazards Impact 5.7-4 concerns fire and emergency medical service impacts. Site development would create the potential of more fire incidents and emergency medical callso~ The PAFD has stated that they could not guarantee with current staffing that they would be able to meet their services standard of being able to respond 90 percent of the time to emergencies within 15 minutes, for both fire and paramedic service. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Maintain Trapper’s Firebreak. Provide sprinklers for all new structures. Water hose around structures. Maintain a Fuel Modification zone. Install "knox box" into any future gate design. In addition, the City will enter into a Joint Simultaneous Response.agreement with Woodside Fire Protection District. Impact 5.7-5 concerns wildland-building fire exposure impacts° New buildings constructed adjacent to wildland areas on the project site would be exposed to fire~ hazards under severe weather and wind conditions.~ This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Install all project roadway and water requirements before any residential sidewall construction on the site. Clear brush and other potential fire fuel around construction areas. Maintain and clearly mark on-site fire response equipment. Ensure that ali construction workers are trained to use on-site fire response equipment. Locate and clearly identify a cellular phone or other communication device on-site at all times during construction. Impact 5.7-6 concerns cumulative fire and emergency medical service impacts. Cumulative development projects would add to the demands of the PAFD. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by relying on cumulative contributions to the City’s General Fund to add staff to offset the impacts. Impact 5.7-8 concerns cumulative police protection service impacts. Cumulative development projects would add to the demand On the PAPD, requiring additional personnel. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by or relying on cumulative contributions to the City’s General Fund to add staff to offset the impacts. Impact 5.7-11 concerns solid waste generation. A small amount of construction and annual waste would be generated by the project, which would be met within current and future landfill capacity. However, the project would require an increase in solid waste diversion to meet AB 939. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as ~a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: During home construction, recovery of waste concrete, asphalt and other inert solids, scrap metals, and reusable items shall be required. A recycling drop-off point at the entrance, of the project at Los Trancos Road should be indicated on project plans. 991208 lac 0080617 Impact 5.7-12 concerns cumulative solid waste generation. Cumulative projects would require an increase in solid waste diversion to meet AB 939° This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measureimplemented by the City: All new significant development projects, submitted for ARB review, should prepare construction recycling plans and operation recycling programs. H. AEsthetics and. Visual ~mpa.cts Impact 5.8-1 concerns the view from the Hewlett Subdivision. The form and line of the homes on Lots 1 ~nd 5-8 would create significant visual contrast impacts. The~ form and line of grading required for the emergency access road would create significant visual contrast impacts. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Plant trees around buildings to break up their form. Relocate the building envelopes for homes off of ridgelines and knolls. Individual homeowners would be required to submit photo’simulations from at least three representative locations during the Site and Design process for each lot. Use earth tone colors on buildings and colors with values similar to surrounding colors. Use wood (shingle or siding) or other building materials which create a finer texture on building ~facades. Hydroseed areas disturbed by grading immediately after construction. Plant small trees and shrubs in areas graded for road widening of the emergency access road or for landslide repair. If retaining walls are built, they should be "stepped back" if possible, and planted with trailing and creeping pla~ts. Impact 5.8-2 concerns the view from Hawkview Drive, Portola Valley. The form and line of the homes on Lots 1-3 and 5-8 would create significant contrast impacts. As the color of the homes is not known, color contrasts would be a potentially significant impact. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and Siteand Design approval: Implement Mitigation 5.8-1. Plant small trees or shrubs to screen the portion of the main access road (Tierra Arboles) near the hairpin curve. Impact 5.8-3 concerns the view from Hillbrook Drive, Portola Valley. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.8-1. Impact 5.8-4 concerns the view from Vista Hill in Foothills Park. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map ani Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.8-1. Impact 5.8-5 concerns the view ~from Los Trancos Trail in Foothills Park. The bright color of pools would be a’potentially significant impact. This impact will be mitigated to a 97i208 lac 0080617 less-than-significant impact by the following mitigation as a condition of Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation Measure 5.8-i. Swimming pools on Lots 7 and 8 should be blocked from views of the Los Trancos Trail. Impact 5.8-8 concerns light and glare impacts. Nighttime lighting could dominate the surrounding area. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map and site and Design approval: Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward and select roadway and pavement surfaces to minimize upward reflected light. Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Conceal lights. Avoid high-angle high-candela distribution. Select lighting fixtures which can be shielded after installation. Use low-intensity lighting, designed to focus downward, on any streetlights. I. Cultural Resources Impact 5.9-2 concerns potential disturbance of unknown cultural resources. Construction could disturb currently unknown cultural resources. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of TentativeMap and Site and Design approval: If cultural deposits are encountered, halt construction in the vicinity and consult a qualified archeologist and the Native American community. Conduct excavation activities thereafter in accordance with the protocol described in the Final EIR. J. Recreation and Open Space Impact 5.10-3 concerns impacts to Foothills ~Park. Residents may trespass into Foothills Park from the project site. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by the following measures as a condition of Tentative Map approval: Signs should be posted at the property line where the existing fire road (Trapper’s Trail) enters Foothills Park, explaining that direct access is not allowed, and that violators will be cited and fined. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be .Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to Biotic Resources and Aesthetics and Visual Impacts. The City Council finds that, in response to each such significant effect identified in this Section 4, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which lessen to the extent feasible the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Biotic resource mitigations (in Impacts 5.6-12 through 5.6-14) are found to be partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies according to Public Resources Code section 21081(a) (2). Short~term visual impacts (Impact 5.8-9) are found to be infeasible to fully mitigate i0 971"208 la~ 0080617 according to Section 21081(a) (3). Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project. A. BiQtic Resources Impact 5.6-12 concerns cumulative tree loss. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other projects in the area, would result in incremental loss of trees and assorted wildlife habitat. This impact will be mitigated by the following measures: (I) As a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval," implement Mitigation Measure 5.6-8 to reduce tree loss on the project site; and (2) implementation by jurisdictions~ in the surrounding area of their respective tree protection and preservation ordinances. Although these mitigations will reduce impacts, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable because it falls within the responsibility of other agencies to enforce and monitor their ordinances° Impact 5.6~13 concerns cumulative nesting or roosting habitat. Implementation Of the project, in conjunction with other projects in the project area, could cumulatively result in ~tree removals that could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings or in nest abandonment by birds of prey protected by Federal and State statutes. This impact will be mitigated by the following measures: (i) As a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-9 to reduce nesting or roosting habitat loss; and (2) implementation by other jurisdictions of mitigation similar to Mitigation Measure 5.6-9 on .a project-by-project basis. Although these mitigations will reduce .impacts, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable because the mitigation falls partially within the jurisdiction of other agencies to enforce and monitor. Impact 5.6-14 concerns cumulative grassland loss. The proposed project, in conjunction with other projects in or adjacent to the San Francisquito Creek watershed, would result in the loss of non-native grasslands, which, due to contiguousness with riparian habitat, provide increasing habitat diversity and foraging habitat for certain wildlife species, including raptors. This impact could be mitigated by the following measure: A regional habitat program, in which developers would pay a fee which would be used to purchase habitat for future conservation. In the absence of such a regional program, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the City to implement, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. B. Aesthetics and Visual. Impacts Impact 5.8-9 concerns short-term visual impacts. Visual disturbance from construction of the project could have temporary adverse visual impacts. In addition, views of development could be significant until vegetation matures. This impact will be mitigated by the following measure as a condition of Tentative Map and Site and Design approval: On-site staging and storage of construction equipment and materials shall be minimized to reduce 9;/1208 lao 0080617 11 visual disturbance during construction° Equipment and material storage that does occur on-site shall be visually screened. Graded areas should be watered regularly to avoid construction dust impacts. Although these mitigations will reduce impacts, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Construction will always induce some amount of short-term visual impact tO the surrounding area which cannot be mitigated without some sort of screening. Screening the total construction site would be impossible, and in any event non-natural screening would create its own visual impacts. No alternative short of no development would reduce the impact to less-than-significant, and this would effectively eliminate all construction in the City, which is not feasible. SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as summarized below: As No Development Alternative This alternative does not foreclose any site development at a later time but assumes maintenance of the status quo. This means that, in addition to no development occurring, prevailing site conditions also would persist unabated or unmitigated. This alternative would not meet the applicant’s basic objectives of creating eight lots for residential development. This alternative is not desirable for the City because: It will not provide needed new housing units within the City, or in-lieu Below Market Rate (BMR) fees to further the City’s assisted housing needs. ABAG studies project a specific need for construction of i,244 new housing units in the City by the year 2002, including 461 units for above-moderate income residents. In addition, the City has an obligation under State lawfor providing units for low and moderate income households, which can be partially met by in-lieu BMR fees the project would Provide. In addition, the Project is proposed at a density consistent with the existing general plan (Comprehensive Plan) and zoning designations applicable to the site. B. 15-Lot Clustered Alternative This alternative assumes up to 15 single.family lots (the maximum density allowed on the site under the City’s OS district) and preservation of the remaining land as open space. This alternative uses the same roadway widths and slopes as the Proposed Project, but assumes that on-site pathways would also be constructed. This site plan for this alternative is shown on Exhibit 6.2-1 of the Draft EIR. 9~1208 lac 0080617 12 This alternative is not desirable for the City because of much greater envi~ronmental impacts as compared with the approved project. This alternative would require much more extensive grading, would ~increase stormwater flow rates considerable and would require the use of an on-site detention basin, would result in an almost doubling of the project-generated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, would result in the loss of many more trees, and result in much greater visual impacts, particularly to Portola Valley residences. C. 8-Lot Clustered. Alternative This alternative assumes development according to a closely grouped site plan, using the same density as proposed.by the project. ¯ This alternative is designed to avoid environmentally~ sensitive areas, thus serving as the "mitigated" alternative. This alternative uses the same roadway widths and slopes as the Proposed Project, but assumes that the main access roadway would be realigned to follow the existing graded fire road and assumes that on-site pathways would also be constructed. ~ Leachfields would be constructed in areas where the slope is under 20 percent. The site plan for~this alternative is shown in Exhibit 6.3-I in the Draft EIR. This alternative was designed to avoid development~in the artificial fill area in the center of the development area, and so the proposed main roadway in the Proposed Project has been re-routed to the existing~graded fire road. This would reduce hydrologic and biological impacts and eliminate the need to construct an" on-site stormwater detention basin. In addition, building envelopes were designed to be located below hilltops and ridgelines to reduce visual impacts, and to make the project more consistent with the City’s Open Space Development Guidelines. Lastly, building envelopes are clustered to reduce the amount of development on the rest of the site. This alternative is basically the equivalent of the. Proposed Project with conditions, as the conditions refer to mitigation measures in the EIR. This alternative was designed to take into account the mitigations in the EIR. Slight differences are apparent in the layout of the proposed homesites. However, the approved project with conditions would result in less impacts from tree loss. In the approved project, the turnaround at the end of the main access road would be located outside of the tree canopy, to the west of the turnaround in this alternative. D. 8-Lot Dispersed Alternative This alternative assumes development similar to the Proposed Project but with building envelopes / pads located below the ridgeline. This alternative uses the same roadway alignment, widths and slopes as the Proposed Project, but assumes that on-site pathways would also be constructed. The site plan for this alternative is shown in Exhibit 6.4-1. 971208 lac 0080617 13 This alternative is not desirable for the City because of the majority of development in Sub-watershed 3, which drains through the Strauss property, including the construction of the main roadway through a grassy swale located on unconsolidated fill. This alternative would require the construction of an on-site stormwater detention basin° This condition would increase erosion and sedimentation impacts to Los Trancos Creek, and would require the construction of a detention basin. E. 8-Lot Clustered Variation Alternative This alternative assumes development according to a closely grouped site plan, using the same density as proposed by the project. The closely grouped site plan is designed based~on the County of Santa Clara Hillside Cluster Ordinance, requiring that development areas encompass i0 percent of the total site area and the remaining 90 .percent of the site be maintained in permanent open space. This alternative assumes the same roadway widths and slopes as the Proposed Project, but assumes that the main access roadway would be aligned to follow the existing graded fire road. The eight lots would be clustered together at the easterly terminus of the access road. This alternative would result in impacts equivalent to the 8-1ot clustered alternative, With slightly greater tree loss impacts and slightly less visual impacts (see impacts cited under Section 5.C., above). F. Off-Site Alternatives There are four parcels located in the City in the Open Space Zone that could physically accommodate the project. However, development of eight residential lots on these parcels would not be feasible. This includes the Palo Alto Hills Golf / County Club, which is infeasible as it is already developed; two parcels of the Kaiser Cement Corporation, which are infeasible as an alternative because of lack of adequate access and the need for major infrastructure improvements (which would result in increased environmental impacts over the Proposed Project); and the Irene Fogarty Trustee Site off of Skyline Boulevard, which would not reduce and probably increase environmental impacts due to the need for secondary access and inadequate response times for emergency service from the City. Other vacant land in the area that could accommodate eight residential units is either under permanent open space protection, or is awaiting development. SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings on the Project: ~71208 lac 0080617 14 A. The Project will provide a total of eight needed new housing units~within the City, and in-lieu Below Market Rate (BMR) fees to further the City’s assisted housing needs. Studies performed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), summarized in the draft Housing Element Technical Document for the draft City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan now in preparation~ project a continuing need for construction of new housing to enable the City to satisfy its fair share of regional housing demands. ABAG studies project a specific need for construction of 1,244 new housing units in the City by the year 2002, including 461 units for above-moderate income residents The. project will ~help meet the ABAG goals for above-moderate units, and the in-lieu BMR fees will help meet the City’s housing obligations under State law for providing units for low and moderate~ income households° Bo The Council, in past deliberations and in the course of considering proposed policies for a new City Comprehensive Plan, has found there exists a substantial imbalance between employment and available housing opportunities in the City of Pal0 Alto, resulting in many persons employed in the City living’outside the City, often in distant~ locations° This imbalance results in lengthy commutes for many workers, loss of family time, .increased vehicle traffic on City and regional roadways, traffic-related air pollution and a lessened sense of community. The approved project will reduce the existing negative jobs to housing balance by providing new residences inthe City. C. ~he project represents an optimum balancing of city housing and environmental policies and objectives. In approving the Los Trancos Subdivision project the Council has been required to consider and balance a wide range of City goals and public objectives, ranging from a compelling need for new housing to an understandable desire to preserve scarce remaining open space in the City and minimize visual effects of the project to neighboring Portola Valley. After considering all factors, the Council is persuaded the project represents the best available choice for balancing these policies on a long-term City-wide and regional basis. In reaching these..c0nclusions, the Council has considered the following factors: (I) No feasible alternate locations have been ~discovered that would meet the project’s objectives. The City, through the CEQA review process for the project, identified and evaluated potential alternative sites that would meet the project objectives. The Council has fully evaluated those alternative sites identified in the EIR and determined that none are feasible and/or would not result in significantly less environmental impact than the approved project. (2) Development of the site for housing is consistent with the City zoning ordinance,~which allows up to 15 single-family homes. 9"~1208 lac 0080617 (3) The project design with conditions as recommended by Staff is superior and minimizes environmental impacts. While the project will result in the loss of open space, the design of the project with conditions achieves a remarkable degree of protection for environmental resources on the site. The project will water quality of Los Trancos Creek, provide safe access for emergency vehicles into the site, greatly protect tree resources, provide for wildland ~ire protection of the site and surrounding areas, and greatly reduce visual impacts of development by screening most development. In considering the various alternate proposals which have been offered for development Of the site, none has any significant environmental advantage ~over the project with conditions. The Council believes that the approved project represents an optimal planning and environmental choice for development of new housing in the City. SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scopingprocess with "no" responses on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained inSection 8.1 of the Draft EIR) and with respect to the following potential impacts identified as not significant in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained inthe Final EIR and in the record of proceedings on the Project. ii II II II II II II II II I/ II II 971208 lac: 0080617 16 SECTION 9. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092ol and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 17 ~712081~0080617 ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map (94-SUB-5) & Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 Draft 1. Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map As amended by recommended map revisions rccc~n-ar~cngcg and conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive.Plan, in that it would result in a division of land that would establish a residential density of one dwelling unit per 18.9 acres and a permanent private open spaceparcel~ofSl÷aeres, encompassing approximately 54% of the land area. The subdivision would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding residential development and the permanent, public and private open space lands. In addition, as revised, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a residential density that is within the density range of the Open Space-Controlled Development land use designation. The project, as revised and as recommended for~additional designand layout modifications,would be consistent with Policy 4 --~ hA,:^.. ,,¯ ...,~. ,,ll,~.r ¯ ¯ of the Open Space Element in that, the proposed improvements, specifically ihebuildingenvelope areas, would be relocated to protect scenic areas ---’ ^ -:--:~" .... ’ f~r pc,.--~ancnt c~pc~’~ ~pacc. While many of the recommended building envelopes woUldbe in:areas of open,grasSland, the recommended locations are appropriate in that a) adequate clustering can.be achieved, b) the open area pro~cides gentle topography (forminimizing grading and earthmovement) and c) the toeation would minimize_impacts .to mature;trees and 0ak,woodland areas, Whichare an important part:of~e site’s scenicreSources~.Additionally, the project, as recommended, would be .consiStent .with~Policy ! 1-of the Open-Space Element, which ~enc0urages res!dential developments :to provide!the maximum amount of open spaee~-:in~_ ~it ~;-t.he s~bdivision ~wb~ldiiOt onlypreserv~81 ÷-acres~for permanentopen space but.would requirethat a building envelope bereeorded for each residentiallot, thuslimitingmost oftheland:~ea for e.achtot for "passive recreation/private open space" use; this eombinati0n Would resultin protection Of over 90% of the Sitein permanent open space; Furthermore, as revised by conditions of approval, the subdivision would be consistent with Policy 1 and Policy 14 of the Environmental Resources Element in that, a) the main access road would be realigned to eliminate the need for an on-site stormwater detention basin, which would minimize the quantity and effects of water runoff and b) 2-1 recommendations for slope stabilization would lessen the risk to human life and property. o The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single- family residential development, in that the lots are sized and configured to be clustered, specific building envelopes are recommended to accommodate home development, ancillary uses and outdoor living space and a substantial portion of the site is proposed for permanent, private open space. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision respects the physical conditions of the site by appropriately arranging residential lots with access to and frontage along the main access road, which by conditions of approval is required to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. As modified by conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision would respect the physical conditions of the site by avoiding excessive tree removal, localizing grading and minimizing the impacts to the southern watershed (Sub-area 3). The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR and Response to Comments, 94-EIA-32). Mitigation measure have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map, which will, where feasible, reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. In addition, conditions of approval require compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan through the design and construction phases of the residential lots. o As modified by conditions of approval, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that, all necessary public services, including utilities and access to Los Trancos Road, a public street, are available and will be provided. The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project concludes tha .property soils are suitable to successfully accommodate eight, individual septic/leachfield systems, with recommendations for more detailed study and/or relocation of leachfield sites during the Final Map stage of development. Furthermore, conditions of approval require the development of an on-site water tank that would be adequately sized to accommodate domestic water service and required fire flow. The subdivision design and recommended conditions of approval for erosion and sediment control would ensure protection of downstream water quality, specifically within the Los Trancos and Buckeye Creeks. 2-2 o The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to receive direct utility connections from public right-of- ways. Draft Findings for Conditional Exception from the Maximum Permitted 15% Roadway Grades per PAMC Section 21.20.210 1.There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for exceeding the 15% roadway grade limits for the main access road to the subdivision (Tierra Arboles). The subject property being served by the road represents a small area would serve a limited number of residential lots (8), which would generate a low amount of traffic. In addition, The 400 foot long portion of the road that would exceed the limits is located in an area is most visible from off site. Compliance with the maximum slope grade, at this location, would require in excessive grading and tree removal, resulting in significant visual impacts. The exception from the maximum road grade requirements at the one 400 foot long segment of the roadway is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, yet provide an appropriate grade and surface (scored concrete) that would present safe and accessible two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. The granting of the exception, which would permit an 18% road grade for a 400 foot long portion of the main ~access road, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that this portion of the main access road is limited in length and would be surfaced to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access (scored concrete). While the road at this one location would exceed the15% road grade limits of the PAMC, the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that it will not result in significant environmental or emergency service impacts in that a) an alternative emergency vehicle access route is provided in the design of the subdivision, b) an on-site water tank is required for required fire flow storage and c) Trapper’s Trail would be maintained as a firebreak. Furthermore, conditions of subdivision approval require that each residence be equip with a fire sprinkler system and that a fuel modification plan be implemented. 4.The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, 2-3 goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road right-of-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. Draft Local 1. Findings for Conditional Exception from Minimum Required Widths for Hillside Roads, per PAMC Section 21.28.020 There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for the reduced road right- of-way width for the main access road to the subdivision (Tierra Arboles). The subject property being served by the road represents a small area would serve a limited number of residential lots (8), which would generate a low amount of traffic. The exception from the minimum road width and right-of-way requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, yet provide an appropriate width to provide two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. The granting of the exception, which would permit a 42 foot wide road right-of- way width and an improved road width of 24 feet, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that the street is sized (width and cul-de-sac turning radius) to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access. While the road width would limit on-street parking to separate parking bays along the hilltop portion of the road, the individual residential lots are adequately sized to provide the minimum required on-site parking (six on-site parking spaces required by conditions of approval). The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road right-0f-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. Fndgstm,lst 2-4 ATTACHMENT 2A Draft Findings for Architectural Review of Proposed Subdivision Improvements File Numbers: 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190 and 94-EIA-31 The proposed subdivision improvements, as amended by recommended revisions, would be consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed improvements with recommended ¯ revisions would be consistent with Urban Design Element Policy 1, which addresses the need to maintain the present scale of the City. Recommended Conditions of approval and revisions to the subdivision improvements would require revisions to road grading, implementation of a tree planting program, and water tank screening, which would reduce project visibility. Relocation of the main access road would also promote further clustering of building areas, thus reducing project visibility from off- site. Likewise, the proposed subdivision improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would be consistent with Open Space Policies, 3, 4, 9 and 11, which encourage the protection of scenic areas. Furthermore, the proposed improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would result in the realignment of the proposed main access road and deletion of an on-site stormwater detention basin; these modifications would be consistent with Environmental Resources Element Policies 1 and 14. The proposed subdivision improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would be compatible with the immediate environment and the surrounding improvements. Specifically, the improvements would permit a road design which is consistent with the rural character of the surrounding area. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map, as required by conditions of approval, would reduce potential tree loss and promote additional project clustering, consistent with developed areas which surround the site. The design of the proposed subdivision improvements would be appropriate for their function to serve an 8 lot, single-family residential subdivision. Specifically, the main access road and emergency vehicle access road, as revised per conditions of approval, would provide safe and convenient access to proposed building sites, fire trails, and on-site water tank. Furthermore, the development of an on-site water tank is appropriate to its function of providing domestic water service and required fire flows. The subject property is not located in an area that has a unified design or historical character. However, the proposed subdivision improvements, as modified by conditions of approval, would be in keeping with the rural residential improvements that are present in the surrounding area. 2A-1 o The proposed improvements, as designed and as modified by conditions of approval, would assist in promoting harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. Specifically, the project proposes a large area of open space, in addition to eight, single-family residential lots. The proposed road improvements and water tank, as recommended by conditions of approval, are appropriately designed for the two land use components on the site. Specifically, modifications to the design of the main access road (minimization of cut and fill slopes) would minimize the loss of trees in the area of the project that is designated for open space. Furthermore, recommended deletion of the on-site stormwater detention basin would avoid tree loss in a heavily wooded area, and maintain natural drainage. The proposed water tank could be located in an area designated for open space; this location is appropriate in that measures are recommended to ensure screening of the tank. The design of the proposed subdivision improvements, as recommended by conditions of approval, would be consistent with existing on-site and off-site improvements. Specifically, recommended changes to the grading and alignment of the main access road and emergency vehicle access road would follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. This change would minimize grading and tree removal, and would promote further clustering of development. Furthermore, access maintenance to the on-site water tank is designed to utilize the existing graded fire road. The proposed road design and subdivision, improvements, as conditioned and modified, would be compatible with improvements which serve similar off-site developments. As proposed, and as modified by conditions of approval, the planning and siting of the proposed subdivision improvements would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for future residents of the subdivision, and for surrounding property owners. Specifically, modifications to the main access road and deletion of the on-site stormwater detention basin would result in the reduction in grading and tree removal, and would facilitate further clustering of development within the subdivision. As proposed and as recommended by conditions of approval, the amount and arrangement of open space that is proposed is appropriate to the design and function of the subdivision and future structures that would be permitted on the individual lots. The open space that would be preserved encompasses a large expanse of oak woodland and open grassland which is an important part of the natural landscape of the surrounding area As proposed, and as modified by conditions of approval, the subdivision improvements provide sufficient ancillary functions to support the proposed 2A-2 subdivision. Specifically, additional revisions recommended for the main access road would ensure that on-street parking rum-outs are provided, as well as turn-outs along the emergency access road. The deletion of the on-site stormwater detention basin is appropriate, given the recommended realignment of the main access road. Furthermore, the inclusion of an on-site water tank would ensure adequate water storage for domestic use and fire flow needs. 10.The proposed subdivision improvements, specifically the main access road and emergency access road, are designed to ensure that property access and circulation are convenient for residences of the subdivision. Recommended modifications to the map ensure that appropriate slope grades along the road are met, and that on-street parking turn-outs are provided. 11. 12. By additional revisions to the Tentative Map and compliance with conditions of approval, .natural features on the site would be preserved and integrated into the project. Specifically, recommended changes to the grading of the main access road and emergency access road would reduce tree removal. Conditions of approval require that the materials, textures, and colors for specific subdivision improvements are incorporated to maintained the wooded and rural character of the site. Conditions require that the materials, height, and design of retaining walls be developed to maintain the rural, wooded character of the site and surrounding area. Furthermore, conditions of approval require that an earthtone color be selected for the on-site water tank. 13.As recommended by conditions of approval, the natural landscape design for the subdivision would be protected and enhanced. Specifically, the proposed open space would protect large expanses of oak woodland and native plant forms. In addition, recommended tree replanting to mitigate for tree loss. 14.As recommended by conditions of approval, the plant materials required for tree replanting would be suitable for the site and capable of being properly maintained. Native plant species selected would require limited irrigation demands. arbfndgs.lst 2A-3 ATTACHMENT 2B Piannin~ Commission Findings for Denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map (94-SUB-5) Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map The proposed subdivision, as amended by recommended map revisions and conditions, would not be consistent with all of the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. While the subdivision would a) result in a division of land that would establish a residential density that is within the range permitted by the Open Space-Controlled Development designation of the Comprehensive Plan (one dwelling unit per 18.9 acres) and b) would provide private open space encompassing 54% of the site, the design of the subdivision would not be consistent with the policies of the Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the subdivision, as designed, would not be consistent with Policy 4 and Policy 11 of the Open Space Element inthat, proposed improvements would not be located in a manner that would fully protect scenic areas and would not result in the maximum amount of permanent open space that could be preserved on this site through the approval of this subdivision. By imposing conditions of approval, the subdivision would be consistent with Policy 1 and Policy 14 of the Environmental Resources Element in that, a) the main access road would be realigned to eliminate the need for an on-site stormwater detention basin, which would minimize the quantity and effects of water runoff and b) recommendations for slope stabilization would lessen the risk to human life and property. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single- family residential development in that, the proposed lots are not sized and configured to be result in a tight clustering pattern, as required by the provisions of the OS (Open Space) District. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision does not respect the physical conditions of the site, in that a) residential lots are not appropriately arranged and located to provide the maximum amount of development clustering that can be achieved, and b) the proposed building areas would not result in the optimum protection of scenic areas nor would they provide maximum screening of development from off site. o The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR and Response to Comments, 94-EIA-32). Mitigation measures could be 2-1 ¯incorporated into the required conditions for approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, which will, where feasible, reduce potentially significant impacts to less- than-significant levels. However, the subdivision, as designed proposes to concentrate development in an area of open, non-native grassland, which would result in impacts to scenic areas on the site. Provided that mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report are properly implemented, the design of the subdivision and the. proposed . improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that, all necessary public services, including utilities and access to Los Trancos Road, a public street, are available and will be provided. The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project concludes that property soils are suitable to successfully accommodate eight, individual septicheachfield systems, with recommendations for more detailed study and/or relocation of leachfield sites during the Final Map stage of development. Furthermore, mitigation measures require the development of an on-site water tank that would be adequately sized to accommodate domestic water service and required fire flow. The subdivision design and recommended mitigation measures for erosion and sediment control would ensure protection of downstream water quality, specifically within the Los Trancos and Buckeye Creeks. ~ The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to receive direct utility connections fi:om public right-of- ways. Modifications necessary to the layout of the subdivision in order to achieve tighter clustering of development and provide mardrnum protection of scenic areas would not Conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent lands or public easements. PCfndgs.lst 2-2 ATTACHMENT & Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 Draft 1. Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map As amended by recommended map revisions and conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a division of land that would establish a residential density of one dwelling unit per 18.9 acres and~ ~!i~. The subdivision would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding residential development and the permanent, public and private open space lands. In addition, as revised, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that it would result in a residential density that is within the of the ~en Space-Controlled Development land use designation. would be consistent with Policy I and Policy 14 of the Environmental Resources Element in that, a) the main access road would be realigned to eliminate the need for an on-site stormwater detention basin, which would minimize the quantity and effects of water runoff and b) recommendations for slope stabilization would lessen the risk to human life and property. 2C-1 The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed single- family residential development, in that the lots are sized and configured to be clustered, specific building envelopes are recommended to accommodate home development, ancillary uses and outdoor living space and a substantial portion of the site is proposed for permanent, private open space. ~~ o The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR and Response to Comments, 94-EIA-32). Mitigation measure have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map, which will, where feasible, reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. In addition, conditions of approval require compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan through the design and construction phases of the residential lots. As modified by conditions of approval, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that, all necessary public services, including utilities and access to Los Trancos Road, a public street, are available and will be provided. The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project concludes that property soils are suitable to successfully accommodate eight, individual septic/leachfield systems, with recommendations for more detailed study and/or relocation of leaehfield sites during the Final Map stage of development. Furthermore, conditions of approval require the development of an on-site water tank that would be adequately sized to accommodate domestic water service and required fire flow. The subdivision design and recommended conditions of approval for erosion and sediment.control would ensure protection of downstream water quality, specifically within the Los Trancos and Buckeye Creeks. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to, adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed or proposed to receive direct utility connections f~om public fight-of- 2C-2 ways. Draft Findings for Conditional Exception from the Maximum Permitted 15% Roadway Grades per PAMC Section 21.20.210 1.There are special circumstances and.conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for exceeding the 15% roadway grade limits for the main access road to the subdivision (Tierra Arboles). The subject property being served by the road represents a small area would serve a limited number of residential lots (8), which would generate a low amount of traffic. In addition, The 400 foot long portion of the road that would exceed the limits is located in an area is most visible from off site. Compliance with the maximum slope grade, at this location, would require in excessive grading and tree removal, resulting in significant visual impacts. The exception from the maximum road grade requirements at the one 400 foot long segment of the roadway is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, .yet provide an appropriate grade and surface (scored concrete) that would present safe and accessible two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. The granting of the exception, which would permit an 18% road grade for a 400 foot long portion of the main access road, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that this portion of the main access road is limited in length and would be surfaced to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access (scored concrete). While the road at this one location would exceed the 15% road grade limits of the PAMC, the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that it will not result in significant environmental or emergency service impacts in that a) an alternative emergency vehicle access route is provided in the design of the subdivision, b) an on-site water tank is required for required fire flow storage and c) Trapper’s Trail would be maintained as a firebreak. Furthermore, conditions of subdivision approval require that each residence be equip with a fire sprinkler system and that a fuel modification plan be implemented. The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road right-of-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. 2C-3 Draft Findings for Conditional Exception from Minimum Required Widths for Local Hillside Roads, per PAMC Section 21.28.020 1.There are special circumstances and conditions surrounding the subject property which warrant the approval of a conditional exception for the reduced road right- of-way width for the main access road to the subdivision (Tierra Arboles). The subject property being served by the road represents a small area would serve a limited number of residential lots (8), which would generate a low mount of traffic. The exception, from the minimum road width and right-of-way requirement is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that it would permit a subdivision design that would reduce the amount of tree removal and grading, yet provide an appropriate width to provide two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. o The granting of the exception, which would permit a 42 foot wide road right-of- way width and an improved road width of 24 feet, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property of the neighborhood, in that the street. is sized (width and cul-de-sac turning radius) to provide adequate emergency vehicle maneuvering and access. While the road width would limit on-street parking to separate parking bays along the hilltop portion of the road, the individual residential lots are adequately sized to pro.vide the minimum required on-site parking (six on-site parking spaces required by conditions of approval). The granting of the conditional exception would not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the exception would be limited to permitting a reduced road fight-of-way width, as well as an 18% roadway slope for a limited portion of the road, serving a limited number of residential lots. Other requirements and goals for approval of the subdivision can be met or are required to be met through implementation of conditions of subdivision approval. FndgA!t5.1st 2C-4 ATTACHMENT 3 Draft Tentative Map and Architectural Review Conditions for Los Trancos Road Subdivision (94-SUB-5 and 97-ARB-190) Prior toFiling the Final Subdivision Map for Approval and Recordation In order to comply with the conditions of approval of this Tentative Map, the Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the following revisions to the map design and layout~r~,~,l-,~,~l~~----’-:--" .......... t,,~i,L~,~ ~~!ii~~ii~~. in Attachment 4, Additional Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15, 1997 of this staff report): a. Realign the first 400 lineal feet of the main access road (cross section station 12+50) so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road (eliminate 40 feet of fill). For this area, a geotechnical engineer shall identify appropriate and sensitive measures for stabilization of the mapped landslide, in order to minimize tree removal. Preliminary recommended stabilization measures (e.g., subsurface retaining wall, "stitch-pin pier system") shall be incorporated into the redesign of this portion of the road. Furthermore, the cut banks shall not a exceed 2:1 slope. b.Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road so that all but one segment is designed with slope grades of 15% or less. Road grades for one, 400 foot long segment of the main access road (cross section Stations 22+75 to 27+25) can be designed with grades of up to 18%, provided that the road in this area is surfaced with a scored, concrete material. c.Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road by using retaining walls, in-lieu of cut and fill slope banks. While cut and fill slope banks may be required in addition to use of retaining walls, use of these banks shall be minimized. Maximum use of retaining walls along this road is necessary to minimize tree removal. The following specifications shall be incorporated: 1) Retaining walls shall be no higher than five feet any one location; if a higher wall is necessary, the area shall be retained with terraced walls. 2)The slope banks of any proposed cut and fill slope shall not shall not exceed 2:1. d.Redesign the grading of the main access road at the "hair-pin" turn so that cut and fill banks transition into natural grade. This area is recommended 3-1 ho jo for tree replanting; therefore, a maximum 2:1 slope bank is required for this area. Realign the last 900 lineal feet of the main access road, so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road that is along the hilltop portion of the site. Realignment of this road, as recommended, permits the elimination of the on-site stormwater detention basin (between Lots # 1 and #2) and off-site siope stabilization (Lands of Strauss). In addition, this recommended alignment will reduce the length of the road by approximately 100 lineal feet. The revised map shall incorporate four, 10 foot wide by 40 foot long on- street parking turn-outs along the hilltop portion of the main access road. In addition, a four foot wide pedestrian path shall be designed to parallel the hilltop portion of the main access road. Realign the first 200 lineal foot segment of the emergency access road so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. In addition, the emergency access road shall be designed so that all segments of the road have slope grades of 15% or less (reduce grades at cross section station 38+00). Turn-outs are required along this road and shall be designed so that each turn-out is in direct line of sight of the next turn-out. The lot lines for Lot #8 shall be adjusted so that this lot is reduced in size to less than 10 acres, with the sm~lus acreage applied to lot #9 (private open space/common area). Individual building envelopes for lots #1-8 shall be identified on the Final Map. The building envelopes shall be configured and sized (approximately 20,000 square feet) generally consistent with those depicted on Attachment 4. The 20,000 square foot building envelope area shall accommodate a home site, ancillary/accessory structures and uses, driveways and parking, manicured landscaping and all permitted impervious surface coverage area, except as necessary for driveway access. The revised map shall identify specific acreage area for each lot, building envelope, private open space/common area parcel and the 60 foot wide right-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. In addition to the above map revisions, the project engineer shall prepare and submit detailed calculations/quantities for proposed impervious surface coverage. Maximum permitted impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 3.5%, as determined per PAMC Section 18.71.080 (permitted coverage for entire subdivision). Prior to calculation of coverage, exact site/property acreage shall be determined, discounting the 60 foot wide Los Trancos Road right-of-way that is proposed for dedication. Impervious surface shall be first determined for the following improvements: 1)Main access road and emergency access road 3-2 2)Existing caretakers home and barn (estimated at 7,600 square feet) 3)Water tank (estimated at 3,000 square feet) Once the coverage for the above improvements is determined, the remaining impervious surface coverage that is permitted to maintain the maximum code allowance (3.5% maximum) shall be proportioned to each lot for building envelope and driveway improvements. The Final Map and property deed for each lot shall include the following information: a. A designated building envelope for each residential parcel. The envelope shall be consistent with the envelopes depicted on the approved, revised Tentative Map and shall be confmned with a meets and bounds description. The Final Map shall include a note which states, "Building Envelope areas are recorded for each lot. All development required for home construction, ancillary uses and structures manicured landscaping and maximum permitted impervious surface coverage (except as necessary for driveway access) shall be confmed to this envelope. Lot area located outside the designated building envelope shall be for use as passive recreation/private open space and limited to improvements necessary to accommodate driveway access, septic leachfields and utilities." A legal description of the building envelope shall be recorded with deed for each residential lot. b.A designated Private Open Space/Common Area parcel encompassing the subdivision land area that is located outside the boundaries of individual lots. This area shall be recorded as "Permanent Open Space/Common Area". The Final Map shall include a note that states: "The Permanent Open Space/Common Area parcel is a non-development area, which shall serve as open space and common area for the residents of the subdivision. " The parcel is to be maintained in the ownership of the homeowners association and cannot be sold for development or future subdivision. Use of this parcel shall be restricted to passive recreation (hiking, viewing), pedestrian access, roads for subdivision, emergency access and access to the on-site water tank and other necessary utilities". c.A note and provisions that each lot is subject to City of Palo Alto approval of Site and Design Review. The note and provisions shall indicate that development of each lot is subject to the procedures and requirements of the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program, outlining the mitigation measures of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final EIR, both on-file with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. d.The Final Map shall include a note that the subdivision is subject to the approved and recorded Subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions 3-3 eo (CC &Rsl see condition 20). Approved impervious surface coverage for the subdivision improvements and for individual lots (as determined through compliance with condition lk, above) shall be noted on the Final Map and in the CC & Rs. The approved impervious surface coverage allowance for each lot shall be recorded with the deed for each lot. The property deed for lot #5 shall include a provision/note that this lot is located in a heavily vegetated area, containing "protected trees" as defmed by PAMC Chapter 18.10. The deed provision shall note that removal of "protected trees" may be required for lot development. The deed provisions shall note that the following will be required during the Site and Design Review and development process for the lot: 1)Preparation of a tree survey/inventory to identify "protected trees". 2)Designing the structure(s) and driveway to minimize tree removal. 3 Requiring tree replanting for any loss of "protected trees". The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report, October 1997 (94-EIA-31), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program, both on-file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared as part of the Final Map Improvement Plans and shall be reviewed for approval by the Architectural Review Board. The plan shall be prepared consistent with the revisions to design andlayout of the map, as required by condition#l, above, and shall include the following: a. The plans shall include a detailed erosion and sediment control plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. The plans shall also include permanent design measures in the improvements that would maximize the control of drainage and runoff and protect water quality. b.Grading for the water tank proposed on lot #9. The fmal grading shall require partial to full burial of the water tank. c.The area of artificial fill (hilltop meadow around proposed cul-de-sac) shall be regraded to its original grades, incorporating contours which re-create a natural drainage swale with "stepped bottom" topography. ~ d. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City of Palo Alto logo 3-4 go and the words "No Dumping! Flows to Los Trancos Creek". This shall be noted on the plans. Terraced drains shall be designed on cut and fill slopes every 30 feet of vertical height on all slopes that are steeper than 3:1. Terrace drains shall have a minimum flow gradient of 6% (so that they are self-cleaning). Down drains shall be fitted every 150 lineal feet. Geotechnical sub-drains shall be installed to maintain slope stability in areas beneath and!or adjacent to rocked or otherwise stabilized drainage channels extending out onto fill slopes. The shoulders of the roads shall be widened, to the extent feasible to minimized tree removal, which would provide the maximum tad ~ bearing surface for emergency vehicles. A detailed landscaping plan and tree replanting, program shall be prepared and part ofthe Final Map Improvement Plans. The plans shall be prepared by a landscape ~h.e. :il.S...i~:-i:.witah-re’~’~ ~.i!N~:;i~[i.;!!.~:ii~~ by the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division and approved by theArchitectural Review Board. The plans shall include the following: a. A detailed tree survey and accurate mapping of all trees with diameters of 6" or greater for areas of grading along the main access road, emergency access road and water tank site. Trees subject to PAMC Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Procedures, Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak). The survey shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a certified arborist, which provides a detailed inventory of tree size, species and condition/health of trees. b.A detailed tree replanting plan for native tree and grass planting in the following areas: 1) Replanting of areas along the main access and emergency access roads, where tree removal is consistent with the Tentative Map, as revised by conditions of approval. 2) Planting of two open, grassland areas located on the southwestern slopes of lots #1 and #8. The lot #! planting area includes the "hair- pin" turn along the main access road, where grading is required to meet road grades. The lot #8 planting area is directly below the proposed building envelope and leaclffield area. 3). Planting of the artificial fill area (meadow) on lots #3 and #4. 4)Along the emergency vehicle access road, where slope stabilization is required. 5)Around the area of the water tank (for additional screening) 3-5 The tree replanting program shall include the following: 6) An estimation of canopy loss area (acreage) and identification of areas that are three times larger (replanting areas specified above). 7)Replacement ratio for trees that are removed shall be 3:1 on a per acre basis by the same species from locally selected stock. Tree planting size for this ratio shall be one 24" box, one 15 gal.lon and one 1 gallon container stock. 8)Tree planting densities shall be 15-foot on center for oaks and large native trees and 8-foot on center for small trees.. 9)Trees shall be planted during the fall on exposed graded surfaces. 10)Specifications for irrigation of trees (during summer) and weeding during the initial planting and growth period (five years). 11) Reseeding of graded slopes with a native grass mix. The tree replanting program shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist, which shall include maintenance requirements (irrigation and weeding), performance standards (a minimum 80% survivability rate after five years) and any additional recommendations as required by the City’s Tree Technical Manual. The following shall be included on the Final Map Improvement Plans, with the design and details subject to the approval by the Architectural Review Board: a. Details for the location and specifications for street lighting, if proposed. Street lighting shall be minimal, yet meet the security and safety standards of the Police Department. If street lighting is proposed, the selected standard shall be a short, low-intensity fixture designed with shields to direct light in a downward b.An enclosure for waste recycling drop-off/pick-up, located at entrance of the main access road. The enclosure shall be designed to 1) meet PASCO requirements for access and 2) utilize materials and colors that are consistent and compatible with the rural setting of the area. c.A detailed design specification and materials for retaining walls along the main access road. Walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Wood/timber or natural rock surface shall be used as a standard for design. Use of concrete block or pored-in-place concrete is prohibited. d.A guard rail shall be placed along the down slope side of the main~access road. The design and materials of the guardrail shall be consistent with the rural setting of the site. e.A selected color for the water tank. The color of the water tank shall be an earthtone to match, at best, the oak woodland setting. 3-6 A detailed tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and the City’s Planning Arborist, and implemented prior to commencement of grading. This plan shall include measures for tree protection during construction, including a temporary construction fence to be erected around individual trees or tree groupings that are to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the City’s Planning Arborist. A "warning sign" shall be prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18 inches square and state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fmes according to City Code 8.10.110." The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline area of the trees. The fencing shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the fmal grading for improvements and re-landscaping are completed. The tree protection plan shall include the additional measures, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan: a. Native trees immediately located outside of construction zones shall be identified by placing stakes with brightly colored flagging around the dripline defmed by the outer canopy in order that crews will know to avoid operating heavy equipment within their root zones. b.Tree roots which measure over 1.5" in diameter and must be severed for grading or construction shall be cleanly and smoothly cut without crushing, shredding or tearing. Cuts should be made to lateral roots only, if possible. c.Incorporate instructions to equipment operators that machinery can cause injury to a tree and that fmes may be levied for tree damage. d.Avoidance of stockpiling soil and construction materials under tree driplines, if the storage causes grade changes. e.Establish limits for use and duration of machinery in heavy traffic areas, where additional stress to trees can be caused. f.Avoidance of storing, pouring, or leaking any fuel, oil, or chemical beneath a tree canopy. g.Avoidance of attaching (nailing, posting) signs, Wires or other construction apparatus to any tree. h.Measures for tree trimming that is necessary for grading and/or construction clearance. 8.The subdivider shall enter into a Subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto 3-7 to guarantee the costs for maintenance and monitoring of the tree replanting program for a period of five years following installation of landscaping and irrigation. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall include details for the construction of and common easements that are necessary for the following: a. Construction and use of parking turnouts along the main access road. A total of four parl~dng bays shall be placed parallel to and along the hilltop portion of the main access road. Each parking bays shall be 10 feet wide by 25 feet long and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). b.Construction and use of the pedestrian path along the hilltop portion of the main access road. The path shall be four feet in width and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). Construction and use of the fire access trail (Trapper’s Trail), which traverses proposed lots #3, #4 and #9. This road shall be maintained as a firebreak and shall provide access to the water tank site. Easements for use of this road shall include access to the water tank for maintenance, access for a firebreak and pedestrian for residents within the subdivision. 10.Final, detailed percolation tests and soil profiles shall be completed for all lots (as locations adjusted per recommendedrevisions to the Tentative Map). The tests shall include information on slope stability and potential to contaminate ground and surface water. The tests shall be submitted to and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City. Leachfields sites for lots # 1 and #8 are located in areas with slopes in excess of 20%. These leachfield sites shall be located in an area where slope grades are less than 20%, unless appr.oved, through special study by the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services. 11.The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved Final Map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder, and shall guarantee the completion of public improvements. This agreement shall include the subdivider’s agreement to fulfill Program 13 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program, through payment of in-lieu fees. The executed agreement shall include the in-lieu fee program and fee payment structure outlined in the letter to John A1Tillaga, property owner, from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo alto Director of Planning and Community Environment, dated June 2, 1997. The agreement requires that the housing mitigation fee for the eight single-family 3-8 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. residential lots be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. The agreement requires that a further mitigation fee be paid at the time of the first building permit is issued for each residential lot. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include details for road signage, pavement markings and graphics at the following locations: a. Along the main access road. Signs to be posted for speed limit, turns, steep grade areas, pedestrian crossings. b.Along the emergency access road. Signs to be posted to indicate the emergency travel route, turn-out locations and instructions for use of turn- outs and right-of-way procedures. c.Along the Trapper’s Trail firebreak. Signs to be posted to indicate "No Smoking" and "No Fireworks". At the property line, post a sign explaining that direct access into Foothills Park is not allowed and that violators will be cited and fmed. d.Provide edge markers in the form of thermoplastic striping, reflective pavement markers and shoulder delineators. A Fuel Management/Modification Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the Fire Department. The plan (which shall be incorporated into the Subdivision CC & Rs), shall be prepared to ensure a 30 foot wide grass and underbrush clearance around all access roads and a 100 foot clearance around all residences. The plan shall incorporate all the requirements and standards presented in the Final EIR Mitigation Measure 5.7-4(e). The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model 76 type). A specific plan showing the new and relocated. hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to completion of the Improvement Plans. If a gate is proposed at the entrance of the main access road, a "knox-box" shall be required for access’ by the Fire Department. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include detailed plans for design and construction of an on-site water tank. The approved tank location is elevation +990 on lots #9, adjacent and accessible to the existing, fire road (Trapper’s Trail firebreak). The tank shall not exceed 200,000 gallons in size and 42" in diameter. A fmal water service study (including water flow calculations) shall be prepared by a licensed engineer to determine the ultimate tank size, in order to meet adequate fire flow supplies. Design and construction plans for the water tank shall include the following:. 3-9 17. 18. a.The system shall be designed based on the City providing a 100 gallon per minute flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system). The system shall be designed to ensure that there is an adequate hydraulic grade established to fill the water tank. b.A small pumping station might be needed, depending upon the ultimate location of buildi~ag envelopes. This determination shall be made as part of the final water service study. c.The tank shall be partially buried to ensure that no part of the tank extends above the existing tree line. Grading plans for the tank shall address this requirement. d.Improvements to the access road (Trapper’s Trail firebreak) shall be required but limited to a pervious/porous surface. The fmal water service study and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Engineering, the Utilities Engineering and the Fire Department. The water service system commencing from the outlet side of the meter, shall be privately funded, owned and maintained. This private water system requires the following: a. ’ The project sponsor shall secure all easements necessary to extend the existing water main to Los Trancos Road (the proposed connection point to he City of Palo Alto water system. b.Design, construction management and all materials of construction for the water supply system, commencing at the main extension from the existing City water main, through the meter vault (including meter by-pass) and into .the subdivision shall be furnished and paid for by the project sponsor (including water tank). A master meter and control valve to limit fl0w rates shall be furnished to the City. c.The fmal Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall include provisions for continued ownership andon-going maintenance of the on- site water supply system by the association of homeowner’s within the subdivision. In addition, Article 2, Section 2.13, Water Tank (page 6) of the CC & Rs shall be amended to note that 1) the City will provide approximately a 100 gallon per minute .flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system) and 2) the water tank shall serve both fire and domestic water needs of the proposed subdivision. A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, which shall include a slope stability analysis 3-10 19. and analysis of potential rockfall hazard (particularly, specific analysis of northeast facing slopes of lot #6). The investigation shall determine specific recommendations and/or appropriate measures for slope stabilization for all landslides and areas of instability and measures for reducing hazards for rockfalls. Measures presented in the investigation shall include the following: a. The use of retaining walls, buttresses and mechanically stabilized embankments (geogrid-reinforced earth retaining walls) in areas of heavy vegetation/tree cover (to minimize tree removal). b.Slide removal and recompaction with stabilized fills and earth buttressing in open areas with little tree cover. c.Recommended setbacks from or removal of loose rocks and/or other stabilization devices. d.Recommended measures for adequate drainage of all earthen and mechanical retaining structures to prevent failure under hydrostatic loads. Upon submittal of the investigation to the City (Public Works Engineering), the City shall hire, at the expense of the project sponsor, an engineering geologist to provide a "peer" review of the investigation. The Final Map shall show the location of all lots along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for access to private open space/common areas, common driveways, maintenance roads, pedestrian paths and on-street parking. 20.The final Conditions, Covenants and Restriction (CC & Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, Public Works Engineering and the City Attorney’s Office to determine compliance with Tentative Map conditions and measures presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The final CC &’Rs shall include the following additions and modifications: a. Reference to all of the Final Map and property deed requirements outlined Condition 2, above. These requirements include the recordation of building envelopes for each lot, the use and restrictions for the permanent open space/common area and requirements that each lot be subject to City of Palo Alto Site and Design Review. Definitions for "building envelopes", "permanent private open space/common area", "Site and Design Review", etc., shall be provided in Article 1 of the CC & Rs. b.The final CC & Rs shall acknowledge that.as part of the Site and Design Review process for each lot, property owners will be required to comply with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program. This plan/program requires specific analysis and study of each lot/site. The CC & Rs shall specifically cite the following mitigation measures from the monitoring plan/program: 3-11 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) lO) 11) 12) 13) 14) 16) ~7) 18) 19) 20) Measure 5.2-1, additional studies/requirements for slope stabilization on lot #6. Measure 5.2-2, requirements for erosion/sediment control, dust control measures and tree replacement for tree removal. Measure 5.2-3, requirement for site/lot-specific geotechnical evaluation at the time of Site and Design Review. Measure 5.2-4, requirement to incorporate rockfall hazard measures.. Measure 5.2-5, requirement for site/lot-specific plasticity analysis at time of Site and Design Review. Measure 5.2-6, .provide earthen and mechanical retaining wall design for each lot, if required. , Measure 5.2-7, requirement for design compliance with Uniform building Code (UBC) standards. Measure 5.4-1, requirements for controlling dust and earthmovement during construction. Measure 5.5-3(b), requirement that private driveways for each lot not exceed slope grades of 15%. Measure 5.5-3(d), requirement for each lot.to provide a minimum of. six on-site parking spaces. Measure 5.5-5, requirements for private driveways to properly align with main access road (for sight distance). Measures 5.5-7 and 5.8-9, requirements for construction staging and logistics plan during development of each lot. Construction staging and storage must be screened. Measure 5.6-7, requirement for installation of erosion control measures during construction on each lot. Measure 5.6-8(c), requirement to locate driveways and structures to minimize tree removal. A tree survey/inventory will be required at the time of Site and Design Review. Tree replanting is required for all tree removal. Measure 5.6-9, requirement to an ornithologist to conduct nesting surveys prior to construction on each lot. Measure 5.6-10, requirement for site design to comply with a list of acceptable plant species for landscaping on each lot. Measure 5.7-4(c), requirement that each residential structure be designed with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Measure 5.7-4(e), requirement to implement a fuel modification zone around each home. Measures 5.7-4(d) and 5.7-5, requirements for fire protection measures during construction on each lot. Measure 5.7-11, requirement for recycling of building materials 3-12 during construction. 21)Measures 5.8-1(a) through 5.8-1(0, requirements to comply with specific development standards in design of improvements on each lot. Development standards include earthtone building colors, wood siding materials, tree planting and landscaping for screening and completion of avisual analysis for all proposed improvements during the Site and Design Review process. 22)Measure 5.8-5, specific requirements for screening lot improvements on lot #7 and #8. 23)Measure 5.8-8, required specifications to minimize light and glare from development on each lot. These specifications shall include restrictions on the colors for window glazing and skylights. 24)Measure 5.9-2, requirement for a site/lot-specific archaeological survey in the event cultural finds-are discovered during construction. The fmal CC & Rs shall include a list of plant species acceptable for landscaping on each lot (prepared by a landscape architect). The provisions shall note that development on each lot shall comply with the approved plant list, as determined at the time of Site and Design Review. The fmal CC & Rs shall be amended so that lot #9 is referred to as "Permanent, Private Open Space/Common Area", rather than "Common Area". Article 2.2 (Easements; Dedications of Common Area) shall be amended to clearly state that sale, transfer, dedication or lease of the property for the purposes of land development or further subdivision is t. The fmal CC & Rs shall be amended to eliminate reference to the on-site stormwater detention basin. Requirements and provisions for the homeowner’s association on-going maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for the following: 1)Tree replanting program, annual reports to the City for first five years of completed subdivision improvements. 2)Monitoring of regraded and revegetated areas, annual report to the City for the fn:st five years of completed subdivision improvements. ~’~ -1__-" .... £--11 .... ~plementafion ~d mo~to~g ~e Fuel Modification PI~, ~ual repoas to ~e Ci~ (Fke Dep~ent). The fmal CC & ~ shall ~clude a det~led Emergency Evacuation PI~ for residents of ~e subdi~sion. The pl~ shall be renewed ~d approved by ¯ e Fke Dep~ent. 3-13 21.All construction and grading activities proposed within or near Los Trancos Creek and/or Buckeye Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD permit requirement for all activities within 50 feet of the creek), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG- stream bed alteration agreement) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The following shall be submitted with the Final Map if grading and construction activities are within or near Los Trancos Creek: a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard stream bed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work. b.Proof of authorization and/or permits form the Corps, if any grading or construction activities are proposed within the creek. c.A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek. 22.The project sponsor shall obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (GCASP) from the Regional Water Quality control Board (RWQCB). The permit application would require the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and accompanying fee to undertake the construction on more than 5.0 acres of land. Prior to the issuance of this permit from the RWQCB, the project sponsor will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for submittal to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering, which is to include Best management Practices (BMPs) for the design of erosion control and stormwater quality treatment measures. BMPs can include the following measures: a. Reduction of the area and length of time that the site is cleared and graded, especially during the non-dry season (October 15 to April 15). b.Revegetation and stabilization of cleared areas. c.Installation of comprehensive erosion, dust and sediment control measures such as straw hay bales, silt fences and sediment traps. d.Straw bales shall be installed on the contour below all graded surfaces, with each bale embedded four inches into the soil. e. Prior to the on-set of winter rains, a seed mix of native grasses shall be planted on bare or .graded slopes. The seed mix shall be native to the Santa Cruz Mountain area. f.Measures to control potential construction activity pollutants such as 3-14 concrete, asphalt, paints and solvents, fuel and lubricating oils, pesticides and herbicides. In addition to the above, the Final Map Improvement Plans shall include permanent measures to ensure long-term control of drainage and water quality. The most restrictive measures for control shall be incorporated into the improvement plans based on recommendations provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 23.Major grading operations on this site may be limited to the dry season months (April 15 to October 15), as determined by Public Works Engineering. Grading activities during non-dry season months may be limited to minor clearing and grading, provided that all erosion and sediment control measures have been installed. Any grading within 50 feet of drainageways that occurs after October 15 (weather permitting) will require a special exemption from both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and California Department of Fish and Game. 24.The following permits may be required from City Public Works Engineering: a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the public right- of-way. b.A Permit for construction in the public street. c.A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and Public Works Engineering. 25.The name of the main access road, "Tierra Arboles" shall appear on the Final Map. In addition, Los Trancos Road shall be referred to and appear on the Final Map as "Los Trancos Woods Road". 26.The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the following plans and documents to address utility service: a. Improvement plans for utilityconstruction. Theplans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements and other required facilities. The plans must also show the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. b.A detailed map showing existing electrical utilities that are off-site, which serve the general area and subject property. The map shall show where electrical service for the subdivision will connect with the existing service lines in the area. The map shall be reviewed and confirmed for accuracy by 3-15 Co do the Utilities Engineering Division. A complete WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET shall be submitted. The application must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. The Improvement Plans shah show one water meter for each parcel. The Improvement Plans shall include the design of the water system (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM), which shall be designed and installed per the City’s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, dated 1992. 27.The final layout and design for the main access and emergency access roads shall conform to Article 9, Section 902, meeting specifications for emergency vehicle access. 28. 29. The project sponsor shall contribute to the City, a sum of $6,000 toward resurfacing Los Trancos Road (Los Trancos Woods Road). The fee for resurfacing the road is based on the "Minor Operational Improvement/Reasonable Maintenance" option approved by the City Council in September 1996 (CMR:391:96). In accordance with City Council approval of the "Minor Operational Improvement/Reasonable Maintenance" option for Los Trancos Road (September 1996, CMR:391:96), the Final Map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication of permanent right-of-way for a 60 foot width of the entire frontage of Los Trancos Road. At the time of Final Map review and approval, the City Council will accept for dedication, a 40 foot right-of-way only (right-of-way needed for minor operational improvements and maintenance). 30.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of , property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious surface area, submitted with the Final Map. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval’of construction by the Building Inspection Division. 31.The project sponsor must apply to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office for a tract number for this subdivision. 32.The Tentative Map shall be valid for a period of 24 months (2 years) from the date of fmal approval. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading and/or Building Permit for Subdivision 3-16 Improvements 33. 34. 35. 36. A Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division, Public Works Engineering and the Planning Division. This plan shall address, at minimum, the following: a. Construction vehicle truck routes and staging areas. The plan shall ensure that no construction vehicle staging is to occur in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road). All construction routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 10.48, and the route map which identifies truck routes that are available throughout the City Of Palo Alto. b.All fill hauls trucks shall be lhnited to a 9:00AM to 4:00PM d .uring weekdays, to minimize construction vehicle traffic during the peak traffic hours. c.On-site vehicle, equipment and materials storage and staging. d.Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. e.Construction vehicle parking shall be prohibited on Los Trancos Road. f.A construction staging area shall be established on site, in an area that is not :-:.::::::::.’.’:~.~:i.U:-.:" -.: ..:~:+: -.highly visible from off site. The staging area shall be located ~6~::i:-~ fr dr in g ay and k "-’- ........ ~’---:’-’- A Tree Protection Statement shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Arborist. The City’s Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the project sponsor or the project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place b.efore demolition, or issuance of a building or grading permit, unless otherwise approved. Before construction, a qualified ornithologist shall inspect the project site. Pre- construction surveys are necessary before February 15 to protect possible early nesting raptors. Following inspection, the ornithologist shall prepare a report of the survey findings and submit it to the Department of Planning and Community Environmental. If nests are discovered, the City shall forward the report to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate protocols may be implemented by these other agencies, including removal of nest or establishment of exclusion zones around the effected nest areas. As an alternative, tree removal shall be prohibited between February 15 and June 30, or as determined by CDFG or the project ornithologist. All new development on the proposed single-family residential lots shall be subject to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school fees, to be determined by the district, Proof of fee payment shall be submitted to the City 3-17 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the single-family residential lots. During Construction 37.The project sponsor shall be responsible for overseeing and/or ensuring that the contractors properly implement the approved construction logistics plan and ¯staging area. Signs shall be posted informing workers of restricted hours and fmes for violations. 38.The project sponsor shall require his/her contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The BMPs shall be consistent with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by above. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the project sponsors construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters, drainageways or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Act). 39.Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding area are minimized. Measures during construction of the subdivision improvements shall include: a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (twice a day or as needed to control dust plumes). b.Avoid overfilling of lxucks to reduce spillage into the public right-of-way and requiring, contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way. c.Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site storage, piles and for haul trucks that travel on public streets. d.Earth movement construction should not encompass more than 230,000 square feet (5.3 acres) in one day, in order to reduce total dust emissions to under 80 pounds a day. e.All tracks hauling soil and other loose material shall be covered to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. f.Apply water or non-toxic soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking and staging areas three times per day. g.Sweep paved access roads, parking andstaging areas daily. h.Install sandbags and other erosion .control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roads. I.Enclose/cover or water (twice daily) exposed stockpiles of soil and loose materials. 3-18 40.All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: a. 8:00AM-6:00PM, Monday-Friday 41.All new electrical service shall be placed underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with the standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. 42. 43. 44. 45. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road or 7.7 acre City-owned parcel).. The following fire prevention measures shall be implemented during construction: a. All project roadway and water system required to serve the subdivision shall be installed prior to issuance of any building permits for any residential sidewall construction on the site (consistent with Section 10.502 of the Uniform Fire Code). b.Clear brush and other potential fire fuel around construction areas. c.Maintain and clearly mark on-site fire response equipment at each construction area. d.. Ensure that there are instructions available and posted to all workers and that workers are trained to use fire response equipment and workplace safety measures. e.Ensure that a cellular telephone or other communication device is available on site, at all times during construction. During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained by the project sponsor to observe approved ground disturbance activities. The archaeologist shall inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event .indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any finds, as recommended by the archaeologist. The project sponsor shall employ the services of a licensed civil engineer (at no cost to the City) to provide appropriate inspections during construction of the proposed (private) water supply.system. The civil engineer shall complete inspections during construction and installation of the water tank, water lines, fittings, valves, pumps and all other associated mechanical devices and facilities. 3-19 Upon completion of the system and improvements, the civil engineer shall certify, in writing, that all work was completed consistent with recommended studies and approved plans and specifications. Prior to fmal inspections, a copy of this written certification shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering prior to final inspections. Material testing shall be provided by a certified laboratory approved by the Public Works Director. 46.A certified arborist shall complete inspections during the installation of trees, seeding and irrigation for the tree replanting program. Upon completion of the installation, the arborist shall report, in writing, that all work was completed consistent with the approved plans and specifications. Prior to final inspections, a copy of this written report shall be submitted to the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division. Post-Construction Monitoring 47.For the first five years following the completion of the completion ~)f the subdivision improvements and landscaping, on-going monitoring shall be required for the tree replanting program. An inspection of the success of the tree replanting program shall be completed once a year by a certified arborist and submitted to the City for review by the City’s Planning Arborist and Planning Division. The annual inspection report shall be submitted on or after June 15 of each year. The annual inspections shall report on the success of new tree growth and ~recommendations for corrections and remediation. Specifically, if the survivability of trees falls below .80%, additional replacement trees shall be planted. If, at the time of the fifth and fmal year of annual inspections the certified arborist fmds that tree growth has not met the performance standards for five years of growth, the certified arborist shall present, to the City’s Planning Arborist, additional measures and detailed recommendations for remediation, including possible extension of the monitoring period for up to an additional five years. 48.~ 49. For the first five years following completion of the subdivision improvements, an annual inspection of the re-graded/re-vegetated area of artificial fill (meadow at hilltop) shall be completed by a licensed engineer. The inspection shall ensure that the area is stabilized and draining properly. This annual inspection shall be summarized in a report and submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or after June 15 of each year. If corrective measures are required (e.g., erosion control, re-vegetation), they shall be recommended in this written report. For the ftrst five years following the completion of the subdivision improvements, 3-20 50. all graded areas shall be regularly monitored, by a licensed engineer, during the rainy season to detect any erosion problems.. An annual report shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or around February_ 15 of each year to report on erosion and recommend corrective measures, if necessary. On or after June 15 of each year, the homeowners association shall submit a report to the Fire Department, on the status of fire cleating activities and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan. The Fire Department shall be responsible for ensuring that the report in submitted and that the plan measures are properly implemented by the homeowners association. On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction) City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. cndnstm.l~ 3-21 ATTACHMENT ~ Draft Tentative Map and Architectural Review Conditions Los Trancos Road Subdivision (94-SUB-5 and 97-ARB-190) Prior to Filing the Final Subdivision Map for Approval and Recordation In order to comply with the conditions of approval of this Tentative Map, the Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the following revisions to the map design and layout (suggested example presented in Attachment 4, Additional Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15, 1997 of this staff report, a.Realign the first 400 lineal feet of the main access road (cross section station 12+50) so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road (eliminate 40 feet of fill). For this area, a geotechnical engineer shall identify appropriate and sensitive measures for stabilization of the mapped landslide, in order to minimize tree removal. Preliminary recommended stabilization measures (e.g:, subsurface retaining wall, "stitch-pin pier system") shall be incorporated into the redesign of .this portion of the road. Furthermore, the cut banks shall not a exceed 2:1 slope. b.Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road so that all but one segment is designed .with slope grades of 15% or less. Road grades for one, 400 foot long segment of the main access road (cross section Stations 22+75 to 27+25) can be designed with grades of up to 18%, provided that the road in this area is surfaced with a scored, concrete material. c.Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road by using retaining walls, in-lieu of cut and fill slope banks. While cut and fill slope banks may be required in addition to use of retaining walls, use of these banks shall be minimized. Maximum use of retaining walls along this road is necessary to minimize tree removal. The following specifications shall be incorporated: 1) Retaining walls shall be no higher than five feet any one location; if a higher wall is necessary, the area shall be retained with terraced walls. 2)The slope banks of any proposed cut and fill slope shall not shall not exceed 2:1. 3A-1 do eo f. h° Redesign the grading of the main access road at the "hair-pin" turn so that cut and fill banks transition into natural grade. This area is recommended for tree replanting; therefore, a maximum 2:1 slope bank is required for this area. Realign the last 900 lineal feet of the main access road, so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road that is along the hilltop portion of the site. Realignment of this road, as recommended, permits the elimination of the on-site stormwater detention basin (between proposed Lots # 1 and #2) and off-site slope stabilization (Lands of Strauss). The revised map shall incorporate four, 10 foot wide by 40 foot long on- ~..e~.t. p~g..~.-...o...U..ts ..a!.o.ng.the hilltop portion of the main access road,~i~ii~~!i~:~:.. ~!!.~i~:i!~.:~.’!~ ’~i In addition, a four foot wide pedestrian path shall be designed to parallel the hilltop portion of the main access road. Realign the first 200 lineal foot segment of the emergency access road so that it follows ~e alignment of the existing, graded fire road. In addition, the emergency access road shall be designed so that all segments of the road have slope grades of 15% or less (reduce grades at cross section station 38+00). Turn-outs are required along this road and shall be designed so that each tam-out is in direct line of sight of the next turn-out. jo ko Individual building envelopes for lots #1-8 shall be identified on the Final Map. The building envelopes shall be configured and sized (approximately 20,000 square feet) with the specific location generally consistent with those depicted ~~!ii~ili~i!i~~. The 20,000 square foot b~Jii~ii~ envelope area shall accommodate a home site, ancillary/accessory structures and uses, driveways and parking, manicured landscaping and all permitted impervious surface coverage area, except as necessary for driveway access. The revised map shall identify specific acreage area for each lot, building envelope, private open space/common area parcel and the 60 foot wide right-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. In addition to the above map revisions, the project engineer shall prepare and submit detailed calculations/quantities for proposed impervious surface 3A-2 coverage. Maximum permitted impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 3.5%, as determined per PAMC Section 18.71.080 (permitted coverage for entire subdivision). Prior to calculation of coverage, exact site/property acreage shall be determined, discounting .the 60 foot wide Los Trancos Road right-of-way that is proposed for dedication. Impervious surface shall be first determined for the following improvements: I) Main access road and emergency access road 2) .Existing caretakers home and barn (estimated at 7,600 square feet) 3)Water tank (estimated at 3,000 square feet) Once the coverage for the above improvements is determined, the remaining impervious surface coverage that is permitted to maintain the maximum code allowance (3.5% maximum) shall be proportioned to each lot for building envelope and driveway improvements. The Final Map and property deed for each lot shall include the following information: a. A designated building envelope for each residential parcel. The envelope shall be consistent with the envelopes depicted on the approved, revised Tentative Map and shall be confirmed with a meets and bounds description. The Final Map shall include.a note which states, "Building Envelope ~eas are recorded for each lot. All development required for home construction, ancillary uses and structures manicured landscaping and maximum permitted impervious surface coverage (except as necessary for driveway access) shall be confmed to this envelope. Lot area located outside the designated building envelope shall be for use as passive recreation/private open space and limited to improvements necessary to accommodate driveway access, septic leacldields and utilities." A legal description of the building envelope shall be recorded with deed for each residential lot. b.A designated Private Open Space/Common Area parcel encompassing the subdivision land area that is located outside the boundaries of individual lots. This area shall be recorded as "Permanent Open Space/Common Area". The Final Map shall include a note that states: "The Permanent Open Space/Common Area parcel is a non-development area, which shall serve as open space and common area for the residents of the subdivision, The parcel is to be maintained in the development or future subdivision. Use of this parcel shall be restricted to passive recreation (hiking, viewing), pedestrian access, roads for subdivision, emergency access and access to the on-site water tank and 3A-3 ownership of the homeowners association and cannot be sold for Co other necessary utilities ~i~..e..i..e.~~..t~::~:~.,e.s.~gi:~i~i~i~!. A note and provisions that each lot is subject to City of Palo Alto approval of Site and Design Review. The note and provisions shall indicate that development of each lot is subject to the procedures and requirements of the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program, outlining the mitigation measures of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final EIR, both on-file with the City of Paid Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. The Final Map shall include a note that the subdivision is subject to the approved and recorded Subdivision Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC &Rs, see condition 20). Approved impervious surface coverage for the subdivision improvements and for individual lots (as determined through .compliance with condition lk, above) shall be noted on the Final Map and in the CC & Rs. The approved impervious surface coverage allowance for each lot shall be recorded with the deed for each lot. The property deed for lots ~!ii~ii.~i!iii~i!!~ shall include a provisiolff.note that ~ii~ located in a heavily vegetated area, containing "protected trees" as defined by PANIC Chapter 18.10. The deed provision shall note that removal of "protected trees" may be required for lot development. The deed p~ovisions shall note that the following will be required during the Site and Design Review and development process for the lot: 1)Preparation of a tree survey/inventory to identify "protected trees". 2)Designing the structure(s) and driveway to minimize tree removal. 3)Requiring tree replanting for any loss of "protected trees". o The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report, October 1997 (94-EIA-31), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program, both on-file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared as part of the Final Map Improvement Plans and shall be reviewed for approval by the Architectural Review Board. The plan shall be prepared consistent with the revisions to design and layout of the map, as required by condition # 1, above, and shall include the following: 3A-4 eo The plans shall include a detailed erosion and sediment control plan to ensure that the potential for erosion is minimized. The plans shall also include permanent design measures in the improvements that would maximizethe control of drainage and runoff and protect water quality. Grading for the water tank proposed on lot #9. The fmal grading shall require partial to full burial of the water tank. The area of artificial fill (hilltop meadow around proposed cul-de-sac) shall be regraded to its original grades, incorporating contours which re-create a natural drainage swale with "stepped bottom" topography. All catch basins shall be stenciled with the approved City of Palo Alto logo and the words "No Dumping! Flows to Los Trancos Creek". This shall be noted on the plans. Terraced drains shall be designed on cut and fill slopes every 30 feet of vertical height, on all slopes that are steeper than 3:1. Terrace drains shall have a minimum flow gradient of 6% (so that they are self-cleaning). Down drains shall be fitted every 150 lineal feet. Geotechnical sub-drains shall be installed to maintain slope stability in areas beneath and/or adjacent to rocked or otherwise stabilized drainage channels extending out onto fill slopes. The shoulders of the roads shall be widened, to the extent feasible to minimized tree removal, which would provide the maximum tad bearing surface for emergency vehicles. A detailed landscaping plan and tree replanting program shall be prepared and part of the Final Map Improvement Plans. The plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect and a certified arborist, both having expertise in large scale design using vegetation native to the Santa Cruz Mountains and the-plant communities found on the site. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The plans shall include the following: a. A detailed tree survey and accurate mapping of all trees with diameters of 6" or greater for areas of grading along the main access road, emergency access road and water tank site. Trees subject to PAMC Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Procedures, Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak). The survey shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a certified arborist, which provides a detailed inventory of tree size, species and condition/health of trees. b.A detailed tree replanting plan for native tree and grass planting in the following areas: 1)Replanting of areas along the main access and emergency access roads, where tree removal is consistent with the Tentative Map, as 3A-5 revised by conditions of approval. 2)Planting of two open, grassland areas located on the southwestern slopes of ~~ lots # 1 and #8. The ~~!ii!ot # 1 planting area includes the "hair-pin" turn along the main access road, where grading is required to meet road.grades. The!.~~: lot #8 planting area is directly below the proposed building envelope and leachfield area. 3)Planting of the artificial fill area (meadow ~ii~!~ii~~ lots #3 and #4). 4)Along the emergency vehicle access road, where slope stabilization is required. 5) Around the area of the water tank (for additional s.creening) The tree replanting program shall include the following: 6) An estimation of canopy loss area (acreage) and identification of areas that are three times larger (replanting areas specified above). 7)Replacement ratio for trees that are removed shall be 3:1 on a per acre basis by the same species from locally selected stock. Tree planting size for this ratio shall be one 24" box, one 15 gallon and one 1 gallon container stock: 8) ¯Tree planting densities shall be 15-foot on center for oaks and large native trees and 8-foot on center for small trees. 9) _Trees shall be planted during the fall on exposed graded surfaces. 10)Specifications for irrigation of trees (during summer) and weeding during the initial planting and growth period (five years). 11) Reseeding of graded slopes with a native grass mix. The tree replanting program shall be accompanied by a report from a certified arborist, which shall include maintenance requirements (irrigation and weeding), performance standards (a minimum 80% survivability rate after five years) and any additional recommendations as required by the~ City’s Tree Technical Manual. The following shall be included on the Final Map Improvement Plans, with the design and details subject to the approval by the Architectural Review Board: a. Details for the location and specifications for street lighting, if proposed. Street lighting shall be mixtimal, yet meet the security and safety standards of the .Police Department. If street lighting is proposed, the selected standard shall be a short, low-intensity fixture designed with shields to direct light in a downward. b.An enclosure for waste recycling drop-0ffipick-up, located at entrance of the main access road. The enclosure shall be designed to 1) meet PASCO requirements for access and 2) utilize materials and colors that are 3A-6 consistent and compatible with the rural setting of the area. A detailed design specification and materials for retaining walls along the main access road. Walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Wood!timber or natural rock surface shall be used as a standard for design. Use of concrete block or pored-in-place concrete is prohibited. A guard rail shall be placed along the down slope side of the main access road. The design and materials of the guardrail shall be consistent with the rural setting of the site. A selected color for the water tank. The color of the water tank shall be an earthtone to match, at best, the oak woodland setting. A detailed tree protection plan, prepared by a certified arborist, for review and approval by the Planning Division and the City’s Planning Arborist, and implemented prior to commencement of grading. This plan shall include measures for tree protection during construction, including a temporary construction fence to be erected around individual trees or tree groupings that are to be saved. The fence shall consist of portable cyclone fencing or wire mesh, security attached to metal posts driven into the ground, or alternative fencing approved in writing by the City’s Planning Arborist. A "warning sign" shall be prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18 inches square and state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to frees according to City Code 8.10.110." The purpose of the fencing is to keep all construction activity and storage outside the dripline area of the trees. The fencing shall be erected before any construction machinery enters the site, and shall not be removed until the fmal grading for improvements and re-landscaping are completed. The tree protection plan shall include the additional measures, as required by the Mitigation Monitoring Plan: a. Native trees immediately located outside of construction zones shall be identified by placing stakes, with brightly colored flagging around the dripline defmed by the outer canopy in order that crews .will know to avoid operating heavy equipment within their root zones. b. Tree roots which measure over 1.5" in diameter and must be severed for grading or construction shall be cleanly and smoothly cut without crushing, shredding or tearing. Cuts should be made to lateral roots only, if possible. c.Incorporate instructions to equipment operators that machinery can cause injury to a tree and that frees may be levied for tree damage. 3A-7 do eo Avoidance of stockpiling soil and construction materials under tree driplines, if the storage causes grade changes. Establish limits for use and duration of machinery in heavy traffic areas, where additional stress to trees can be .caused. Avoidance of storing, pouring, or leaking any fuel, oil, or chemical beneath a tree canopy. Avoidance of attaching (nailing, posting) signs, wires or other construction apparatus to any tree. Measures for tree trimming that is necessary for grading and/or construction clearance. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto to guarantee the costs for maintenance and monitoring of the tree replanting program for a period of five years following installation of landscaping and irrigation. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall include details for the construction of and common easements that are necessary for the following: a. Construction and use of parking turnouts along the main access road, ~ ?:i" ::ii~::~ ~?::.:i-" "~:?~::-~:::i~"~-i:~:~i~:~:’:’%’.’:~:£ "’I:’:’~",::Y":Y’:::,~:?I:I:?"~:~:~::" "~-::’;:,:!:~:?~:~:::’ .:-i~i!.~.,.U.....S..i!!~g!i~:.!.~s...~. A total of four parking bays shall be placed parallel to and along the hilltop portion of the main access road. Each parking bay shall be 10 feet wide by 40 feet long and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). b.Construction and use of the. pedestrian path along the hilltop portion of the main access road. The path shall be four feet in width and shall be surfaced with a crushed gravel or aggregate material (no impervious pavement material is permitted). c.Construction and use of the fire access trail (Trapper’s Trail). This road shall be maintained as a firebreak and shall provide access to the water tank site. Easements for use of this road shall include access ~ the water tank for maintenance, access for a firebreak and pedestrian for residents within the subdivision. 10.Final, detailed percolation tests and soil profiles shall be completed for all lots (as locations adjusted per recommended revisions to the Tentative Map). The tests shall include information on slope stability and potential to contaminate ground and surface water. The tests shall be submitted to .and approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services prior to submittal of a Final Map to the City. Leaclffleld sites ~i:. .... ~!!~ shall be located in an area where slope grades are less than 20%, unless approved, through special study by the Santa Clara County 3A-8 11. 12. 13. 14. Department of Health Services. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved Final Map at the office Of the Santa Clara County Recorder, and shall guarantee the completion of public improvements. This agreement shall include the subdivider’s agreement to fulfill Program 13 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program, through payment of in-lieu fees. The executed agreement shall include the in-lieu fee program and fee payment structure outlined in the letter tO John Arfillaga, property owner, from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo alto Director.of Planning and Community Environment, dated June 2, 1997. The agreement requires that the housing mitigation fee for the eight single-family residential lots be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the Final Map. The agreement requires that a fittather mitigation fee be paid at the time of the first building permit is issued for each residential lot. The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include details for road signage, pavement markings and graphics at the following locations: a. Along the main access road. Signs to be posted for speed limit, turns, steep grade areas, pedestrian crossings. b.Along the emergency access road. Signs to be posted to indicate the emergency travel route, turn-out locations and instructions for use of turn- outs and right-of-way procedures. c.Along the Trapper’s Trail firebreak, signs to be posted to indicate "No Smoking" and "No Fireworks". At the property line, post a sign explaining that direct access into Foothills Park is not allowed and that violators will be cited and fme, d. d.Provide edge markers in the form of thermoplastic striping, reflective pavement markers and shoulder delineators. A Fuel Management/Modification Plan shall be prepared and submitted for approval by the Fire Department. The plan (which shah be incorporated into the Subdivision CC & Rs), shall be prepared to ensure a 30 foot wide grass and. underbrush clearance around all access roads and a 100 foot clearance around all residences. The plan shall incorporate all the requirements and standards presented in the Final EIR Mitigation Measure 5.7-4(e). The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the placement of fire hydrants every 300 feet (Model 76 type). A specific plan showing the new and relocated hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to completion of the Improvement Plans. 3A-9 15. 16. 17. If a gate is proposed at the entrance of the main access road, a "knox-box" shall be required for access by the Fire Department. ~ The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include detailed plans for design and construction of an on-site water tank. The approved tank location is elevation +990 on lots #9, adjacent and accessible to the existing, fire road (Trapper’s Trail firebreak). The tank shall not exceed 200,000 gallons in size and 42" in diameter. A final water service study (including water flow calculations) shall be prepared by a licensed engineer to determine the ultimate tank size, in order to meet adequate f!re flow supplies. Design and construction plans for the water tank shall include the following: a. The system shall be designed based on the City providing a 100 gallonper minute flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system). The system shall be designed to ensure that there is an adequate hydraulic grade established to fill the water tank. b.A small pumping station might be needed, depending upon the ultimate location of building envelopes. This determination shall be made as part of the fmal water service study. c.The tank shall be partially buried to ensure that no part of the tank extends above the existing tree line. Grading plans for the tank shall address this requirement. d.Improvements to the access road (Trapper’s Trail firebreak) shall be required but limited to a pervious/porous surface. The final water service study and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Engineering, the Utilities Engineering and the Fire Department. The water service system commencing from the outlet side of the meter, shall be privately funded, owned and maintained. This private water system requires the following: a. The project sponsor shall secure all easements necessary to extend the existing water main to Los Trancos Road (the proposed connection point to he City of Palo Alto water system. b.Design, conslruction management and all materials of construction for the water supply system, commencing at the main extension from the existing City water main, through the meter vault (including meter by-pass) and into the subdivision shall befumished and paid for by the project sponsor (including water tank). A master meter and control valve to limit flow rates shall be furnished to the City. c.The fmal Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall include 3A-10 provisions for continued ownership and on-going maintenance of the on- site water supply system by the association of homeowner’s within the subdivision. In addition, Article 2, Section 2.13, Water Tank (page 6) of the CC & Rs shall be amended to note that 1) the City will provide approximately a 100 gallon per minute flow rate to fill the water tank (in order to minimize impacts to the existing City water distribution system) and 2),the water tank shall serve both fire and domestic water needs of the proposed subdivision. 18.A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, which shallmclude a slope stability analysis and analysis of potential rockfall hazard. The investigation shall determine specific recommendations and/or appropriate measures for slope stabilization for all landslides and areas of instability and measures for reducing hazards for rockfalls. Measures presented in the investigation shall include the following: a. The use of retaining walls, bu~esses and mechanically stabilized embankments (geogrid-reinforced earth retaining walls) in areas of heavy vegetation/tree cover (to minimize tree removal). b.Slide removal and recompaction with stabilized fills and earth buttressing in open areas with little tree cover. c.Recommended setbacks from or removal of loose rocks and/or other stabilization devices. d.Recommended measures for adequate drainage of all earthen and mechanical retaining structures to prevent failure under hydrostatic loads. Upon submittal of the investigation to the City (Public Works Engineering), the City shall hire, at the expense of the project sponsor, an engineering geologist to provide a "peer" review of the investigation. 19.The Final Map shall show the location of all lots along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for access to private open space/common areas, common driveways, maintenance roads, pedestrian paths and on-street parking. 20.The fma! Conditions, Covenants and Restriction (CC & Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, Public Works Engineering and the City Attorney’s Office to determine compliance with Tentative Map conditions and measures presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The f’mal CC & Rs shall include the following additions and modifications: a. Reference to all of the Final Map and property deed requirements outlined Condition 2, above. These requirements include the recordation of building envelopes for each lot, the use and restrictions for the permanent open 3A-11 bo space/common area and requirements that each lot be subject to City of Palo/XJto Site and Design Review. Defmitions for "building envelopes", "permanent private open space/common area", "Site and Design Review", etc., shall be provided in Article 1 of the CC & Rs. The fmal CC& Rs shall acknowledge that as part of the Site and Design Review process for each lot, property owners will be required to comply with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program. This plan/program requires specific analysis and study of each lot/site. The CC & Rs shall specifically cite the following mitigation measures from the monitoring plan/program: 1)Measure 5.2-2, requirements for erosion/sediment control, dust control measures and tree replacement for tree removal. 2)Measure 5.2-3, requirement for site/lot-specific geotechnical evaluation at the time of Site and Design Review. 3).Measure 5.2-4, requirement to incorporate rockfall hazard measures. 4)Measure 5.2-5, requirement for site/lot-specific plasticity analysis at time of Site and Design Review. 5)Measure 5.2-6, provide earthen and mechanical retaining wall design for each lot, if required. 6)Measure 5.2-7, requirement for design compliance with Uniform building Code (UBC) standards. 7)Measure 5.4-1, .requirements for controlling dust and earthmovement during construction. 8)Measure 5.5-3(b), requirement that private driveways for each lot not exceed slope grades of 15%. 9)Measure 5.5-3(d), requirement for each lot to provide a minimum of six on-site parking spaces. 10)Measure 5.5-5, requirements for private driveways to properly align with main access road (for sight distance). 11)Measures 5.5-7 and 5.8-9, requirements for construction stagingand logistics plan during development of each lot. C0nstmction staging and storage must be screened. 12)Measure 5.6-7, requirement for installation of erosion control measures during construction on each lot. 13)Measure 5.6-8(c), requirement to locate driveways and structures to minimize tree removal. A tree survey/inventory will be required at the time of Site and Design Review. Tree replanting is required for all tree removal. 14)Measure 5.6-9, requirement to an ornithologist to conduct nesting surveys prior to construction on each lot. 15) Measure 5.6-10, requirement for site design to comply with a list of 3A-12 eo acceptable plant species for landscaping on each lo~. 16)Measure 5.7-4(c), requirement that each residential structure be designed with an automatic fire sprinkler system. 17)Measure 5.7-4(e), requirement to implement a fuel modification zone around each home. 18)Measures 5.7-4(d) and 5.7-5, requirements for fire protection measures during construction on each lot. 19)Measure 5.7-11, requi}ement for recycling of building materials during construction. 20)Measures 5.8-1 (a) through 5.8-1 (f), requirements to comply with specific development standards in design .of improvements on each lot. Development standards include earthtone building colors, wood siding materials, tree planting and landscaping for screening and completion of a visual analysis for all proposed improvements during the Site and Design Review process. 21)Measure 5.8-5, specific requirements for screening lot improvements on lot #7 and #8. 22)Measure 5.8-8, required specifications to minimize light and glare from development on each lot. These specifications shall include restrictions on the colors for window glazing and skylights. 23).Measure5.9-2, requirement for a site/lot-specific archaeological survey in the event cultural fmds are discovered during construction. The fmal CC & Rs shall include a list of plant species acceptable for landscaping on each lot (prepared by a landscape architect). The provisions shall note that development on each lot shall comply with the approved plant list, as determined at the time of Site and Design Review. The fmal CC & Rs shall be amended so that lot #9 is referred to as "Permanent, Private Open Space/Common Area", rather than "Common Area". Article 2.2 (Easements; Dedications of Common Area) shall be amended to clearly state that sale, transfer, dedication or lease of the property for the purposes of land development or further subdivision is prohibited. In addition, the CC & Rs shall state that uses in this area shall be restricted to passive recreation uses (e.g., hiking and viewing), utilities, The final CC & Rs shall be amended to eliminate reference to the on-site stormwater detention basin. Requirements and provisions for the homeowner’s association on-going maintenance and monitoring responsibilities for the following: 1)Tree replanting program, annual reports to the City for first five years of completed subdivision improvements. 2) Monitoring of regraded and revegetated areas, annual report to the 3A-13 go City for the first five years of completed subdivision improvements. Implementation and monitoring the Fuel Modification Plan, annual reports to the City (Fire Department). The fmal CC & Rs shall include a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan for residents of the subdivision. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 22. All construction and grading activities proposed within or near Los Trancos Creek and/or Buckeye Creek may be subject to approvals and/or permits from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD permit requirement for all activities within 50 feet of the creek), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG- stream bed alteration agreement) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The .. following shall be submitted with the Final Map if grading and construction activities are within or near Los Trancos Creek: a. A written determination from CDFG that the proposed actions do not fall within their jurisdiction, or that a standard stream bed alteration agreement has been executed for authorized work. b.Proof of authorization and/or permits form the Corps, if any grading or construction activities are proposed within the creek. c.A written authorization and/or proof of an approved permit from the SCVWD, for all construction and grading work within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek. The project sponsor shall obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (GCASP) from the Regional Water Quality control Board (RWQCB). The permit application would require the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and accompanying fee to undertake the construction on more than 5.0 acres of land. Prior to the issuance of this permit from the RW~QCB, the project sponsor will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for submittal to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering, which is to include Best management Practices (BMPs) for the design of erosion control and stormwater quality treatment measures. BMPs can include the following measures: 3A-14 23. 24. 25. a.Reduction of the area and length of time that the site is cleared and graded, especially during the non-dry season (October 15 to April 15). b.Revegetation and stabilization of cleared areas. c.Installation of comprehensive erosion, dust and sediment control measures such as straw hay bales, silt fences and sediment traps. d.Straw bales shall be installed on the contour below all graded surfaces, with each bale embedded four inches into the soil. e. Prior to the on-set of winter rains, a seed mix of native grasses shall be planted on bare or graded slopes. The seed mix shall be native to the Santa Cruz Mountain area. f.Measures to contro! potential construction activity pollutants such as concrete, asphalt, paints and solvents, fuel and lubricating oils, pesticides and herbicides. In addition to the above, the Final Map Improvement Plans shall include permanent measures to ensure long-term control of drainage and water quality. The most restrictive measures for control shall be incorporated into the improvement plans based on recommendations provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Major grading operations on this site may be limited to the dry season months (April 15 to October 15), as determined by Public Works Engineering. Grading activities during non-dry season months may be limited to minor clearing and , grading, provided that all erosion and sediment control measures have been installed. Any grading within 50 feet of drainageways that occurs after October 15 (weather permitting) will require a special exemption from both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and California Department of Fish and Game. The following permits may be required from City Public Works Engineering: a. An Encroachment Permit for use of and improvements to the public right- of-way. b.A Permit for construction in the public street. c.A Grading and Excavation Permit. Any construction within the CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled by the City of Palo Alto must conform to the standards established in the CPA Standard Specifications for Utilities Department and Public Works Engineering. The name of the main access road, "Tierra Arboles" shall appear on the Final Map. In addition, Los Trancos Road shall be referred to and appear on the Final Map as "Los Trancos Woods Road". 3A-15 26.The Final Map Improvement Plans shall include the following plans and documents to address utility service: a. Improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground uta’lities within the development and the public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements and other required facilities. The plans must also show the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. b.A detailed map showing existing electrical utilities that are off-site, which serve the general area and subject property. The map shall show where electrical service for the subdivision will connect with the existing service lines in the area. The map shall be reviewed and confLrmed for accuracy by the Utilities Engineering Division. c.A complete WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET shall be submitted. The application must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. d.The Improvement Plans shall show one water meter for each parcel. e.The Improvement Plans shall include the design of the water system (WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM), which shall be designed and installed per the City’s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, dated 1992. 27.The fmal layout and design for the main access and emergency access roads shall conform to Article 9, Section 902, meeting specifications.for emergency vehicle access. 28. 29. 30. The project sponsor shall contribute to the City, a sum of $6,000 toward resurfacing Los Trancos Road (Los Trancos Woods Road). The fee for resurfacing the road is based on the "Minor Operational Improvement/Reasonable Maintenance" option approved by the City Council in September 1996 (CMR:391:96). In accordance with City Council approval of the "Minor Operational Improvement/Reasonable Maintenance" option for Los Trancos Road (September 1996, CMR:391:96), the Final Map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication of permanent right-of-way for a 60 foot width of the entire frontage of Los Trancos Road. At the time of Final Map review and approval, the City Council will accept for dedication, a 40 foot right-of-way only (right-of-way needed for minor operational improvements and maintenance). The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of property. The project sponsor shall provide calculations showing the adjusted 3A-16 31. impervious surface-area, submitted with the Final Map. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the approval of construction by the Building Inspection Division. The project ~ponsor must apply to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office for a tract number for this subdivision. 32.The Tentative Map shall be valid for a period of 24 months (2 years) from the date of final approval. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading and/or Building Permit for Subdivision Improvements 33.A Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division, Public Works Engineering and the Planning Division. This plan shall address, at minimum, the following.: a. Construction vehicle truck routes and staging areas. The plan shall ensure that no construction vehicle staging is to occur in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road). All construction routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Truck and Truck Route Ordinance, PAMC Chapter !0.48, and the route map which identifies truck routes that are available throughout the City of Palo Alto. b.All fill hauls trucks shall be limited to a 9:00AM to 4:00PM during weekdays, to minimize construction vehicle traffic during the peak traffic hours. c.On-site vehicle, equipment and materials storage and staging. d.Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. e.Construction vehicle parking shall be prohibited on Los Trancos Road. f.A construction staging area shall be established on site, in an area that is not highly visible from off site. The staging area shall be located at least 100 feet away from drainageways and creeks. 34. 35. A Tree Protection Statement shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Arborist. The City’s Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the project sponsor or the project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before demolition, or issuance of a building or grading permit, unless otherwise approved. Before construction, a qualified ornithologist shall inspect the project site. Pre- construction surveys are necessary before February 15 to protect possible early nesting raptors. Following inspection, the ornithologist shall prepare a report of 3A-17 the survey findings and submit it to the Department of Planning and Community Environmental. If nests are discovered, the City shall forward the report to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate protocols may be implemented by these other agencies, including removal of nest or establishment of exclusion zones around the effected nest areas. As an alternative, tree removal shall be prohibited between February 15 and June 30, or as determined by CDFG or the project ornithologist. 36.All new development on the proposed single-family residential lots shall be subject to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school fees, to be determined by the district. Proof of fee payment shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of-a building permit for the single-family residential lots.. During Construction 37.The project sponsor shall be responsible for overseeing and/or ensuring that the contractors properly implement the approved construction logistics plan and staging area. Signs shall be posted informing workers of restricted hours and fmes for violations. 38.The project sponsor shall require his/her contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.. The BMPs shall be consistent with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by above. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the project sponsors construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw-cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) Or other waste materials into gutters, drainageways or storm drains (Federal Clean Water Ac0. 39.Dust control measures shall be imposed to ensure that temporary air impacts to the surrounding area are minimized. Measures during construction of the subdivision improvements shall include: a. The watering of all exposed earth surfaces during the construction process (twice a day or as needed to control dust plumes). b.Avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage into the public fight-of-way and requiring contractors to clean-up spillage in the public right-of-way. c. Use tarpaulins or other effective covers for on-site storage piles and for haul trucks that travel on public streets. d. Earth movement construction should not encompass more than 230,000 3A-18 g. h. square feet (5.3 acres) in one day, in order to reduce total dust emissions to under 80 pounds a day. All trucks hauling soil and other loose material shall be covered to maintain at least two feet of fxeeboard. Apply water or non-toxic s0il stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking and staging areas three times per day. Sweep paved access roads, parking and staging areas daily. Install sandbags and other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roads. Enclose/cover or water (twice daily) exposed stockpiles of soil and loose materials. 40.All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited to 8:00AM-6:00PM, Monday-Friday.. 41. 42. 43. 44. All new electrical service shall beplaced underground. All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed in accordance with the standards published by the Utilities Engineering Division. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the public right-of-way (Los Trancos Road or 7.7 acre City-owned parcel). The following fire prevention measures shall be implemented during construction: a. All project roadway and water system reqtiired to serve the subdivision shall be installed prior to issuance of any building permi,ts for any residential sidewall construction on the site (consistent with Section 10.502 of the Uniform Fire Code). b.Clear brush and other potential fire fuel around consmaction areas. c.Maintain and clearly mark on-site fire response equipment at each ’ construction area. Ensure that there are instructions available and posted to all workers and that workers are trained to use fire response equipment and workplace safety measures. e.Ensure that a cellular telephone or other communication device is available on site, at all times during construction. d. During construction, a qualified archaeologist shall be obtained by the project sponsor to observe approved ground disturbance activities. The archaeologist shall 3A-19 inspect the exposed ground surface immediately following the initial disturbance of the uppermost two feet of soil on any part of the project. In the event indicators of archaeological resources are discovered, all work shall be halted in the area for further investigation. Further investigation may result in a requirement to remove, relocate or cover any fmds, as recommended by the archaeologist. 45.The project sponsor shall employ the services of a licensed civil engineer (at no cost to the City),to provide appropriate inspections during construction of the proposed (private) water supply system. The civil engineer shall complete inspections during construction and installation of the water tank, water lines, fittings, valves, pumps and all other associated mechanical devices and facilities. Upon completion of the system and improvements, the civil engineer shall certify, in writing, that all work Was completed consistent with recommended studies and approved plans and specifications. Prior to fmal inspections, a copy of this written certification shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering prior to final inspections. Material testing shall be provided by a certified laboratory approved by the Public Works Director. 46.A certified arborist shall complete inspections during the installation of trees, seeding and irrigation for the tree replanting program. Upon completion of the installation, the arborist shallreport, in writing, that all work was completed consistent with the approved plans and specifications. Prior to fmal inspections, a copy of this written report shall be submitted to the City Planning Arborist and the Planning Division. Post-Construction Monitoring’ ~47.For the first five years following the completion of the completion of the subdivision improvements and landscaping, on-going monitoring shall be required for the tree replanting program. An inspection of the success of the tree replanting program shall be completed once a year by a certified arborist and submitted to the City for review by the City’s Planning Arborist and Planning Division. The annual inspection report shall be submitted on or after...Jtme 1..5 of each year. The annual inspections shall report on the success of new tree growth and recommendations for corrections and remediation. Specifically, if the survivability of trees falls below 80%, additional replacement trees shall be planted. If, at the time of the fifth and fmal year of annual inspections the certified arborist fmds that tree growth has not met the performance standards for five years of growth, the certified arborist shall present, to the City’s Planning Arborist, additional measures and detailed recommendations for remediation, including . possible extension of the monitoring period for up to an additional five years. 3A-20 48. 49. 50. 51. For the first five years following completion of the subdivision improvements, an annual inspection of the re-graded/re-vegetated area of artificial fill (meadow at hilltop) shall be completed by a licensed engineer. The inspection shall ensure that the area is stabilized and draining properly. This annual inspection shall be summarized in a report and submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or after June 15 of each year. If corrective measures are required (e.g., erosion control, re-vegetation), they shall be recommended in this written report. For the first five years following the completion of the subdivision improvements, all graded areas shall be regularly monitored, by a licensed engineer, during the rainy season to detect any erosion problems. An annual report shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Engineering on or around February. 15 of each year to report on erosion and recommend corrective measures, if necessary. On or after June 15 of each year, the homeowners association shall submit a report to the Fire Department, on the status of fire clearing activities and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan. The Fire Department shall be responsible for ensuring that the report in submitted and that the plan measures are properly implemented by the homeowners association. For the first five years following the subdivision improvements, all drainage improvements and potential erosion Shall be monitored during the wet/rainy season. On-going (Throughout Processing and Construction) 52.City staff time required for implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the project sponsor. cndnalt5.1st 3A-21 Proposed Private Open SpacelCommon Area !,,. .-.~ \~. ATTACHMENT 4 Recommended Revisions to Te~-~tative Map October 15, 1997 1 inch - 450 feet I ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:Planning Commission FROM: AGENDA DATE: Paul Jensen November 12, 1997 DEPARTMENT:Planning SUBJECT:Los Trancos Road (Lands of Arrillaga, AP 182-46-010); Tentative *Subdivision Map for proposed 8-lot single-family residential subdivision with private open space/common area parcel and Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Sections 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (Subdivision Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council conditional approval of the revised Tentative Subdivision Map and approval of the exceptions from PAMC Sections 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (Subdivision Ordinance) based on the findings presented in Attachment 2, and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3 including the additional revisions to the design and layout of the map as presented in Attachment 4. In summary, the recommended revisions to the map include the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Revisions to the grading of the main access road. Revisions to the alignment of the main access road along the hilltop. Revisions to the alignment and grades of the emergency access road. Require measures for screening the proposed water tank. Reduce the size of lot #8 to less than 10 acres. Define and record building envelopes for each residential lot. BACKGROUND/PROTECT INFORMATION Planning Commission Review Process for Project The Planning Commission review process for this project has been handled in two phases. Typically, the Commission would simultaneously review and recommend action on the environmental document (DEIR or Negative Declaration) and the project merits (Tentative pcsr-tm.lst Map, permits, approvals). However, given the EIR mitigation measures recommend a number of design changes to the Tentative Map, the two-phased review process was deemed appropriate for this project. On July 30, 1997 and August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission completed the ftrst phase review of the project. The first phase addressed the adequacy of the DEIR that had been prepared for this project. Following DEIR comments from the public and the Commission, the Planning Commission, on a 6-0 vote, recommended that staff proceed with the preparation of a Final EIR/Response to Comments (FEIR). The Commission requested that - the FEIR include the preparation and analysis of an additional "clustered" project alternative. An FEIR/Response to Comments document has been completed. This document includes a draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program for tracking implementation of required- mitigation measures. While the Planning Commission is not required to review and make recommendations on the FEIR, copies of the document have been distributed to the Planning Commission for information and assistance in reviewing the project merits. The City Council will review the FEIR (Response to Comments document together with the DEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program) for adequacy and certification at the time of Tentative Map review. Site Information The subject property consists of 151.41 acres of hillside located immediately south of 500 Los Trancos Road, near the western city limit boundary of Palo Alto. This site is located in the Palo Alto foothills, approximately three (3) miles west of Interstate 280 and ’approximately one (1) mile south of Alpine Road/Los Trancos Road intersection. The project site consists of steep slopes and a ridge/hilltop. A majority of the hilltop is visible from neighboring residential areas and public open space. Site elevations range from 530 to 1,050 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). Prominent property features include dense oak woodland and open grassland. The Los Trancos Creek borders the western property boundary, while a smaller creek (Buckeye Creek) is located north of the site. The property boundaries include an existing access driveway intersection with Los Trancos Road (northwest comer of the site), a 1,650 foot long segment of Los Trancos Road, and a segment of land along Los Traneos Creek. With the exception of existing, graded fire roads, except for an existing barn and caretakers residence located at the far east comer of the site. An existing, graded fire road (approximately 12 feet in width) commences at the entrance road to Los Trancos Road, extending through the southwest-facing oak woodland to the ridgetop. At the hilltop, the fire road splits, descending along the eastern and southeastern (Trapper’s Trail) slopes of the property. pcsr-trn.lst Page 2 The subject property is located in an area of low density, large lot residential development and a variety of open space lands. Lands to the north include a 5-lot, single-family residential subdivision (Lee Subdivision), and a 7.7 acre parcel owned by the City of Palo Alto (northeast). The Lee Subdivision is contiguous to a 10-lot, single-family residential subdivision (Hewlett Subdivision), and a large parcel owned by John Arrillaga (referred to as the "Quarry site"). The property is immediately contiguous to City of Palo Alto Foothills Park, which is located to the east and south. The Arastradero Preserve extends north of Foothills Park. Lands located northwest, west, and southwest of the site are either within the Town limits of Portola Valley, or are located within unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. Developed and open space lands located west and southwest of the subject property include the Portola Valley Ranch single-family residential planned community, Portola G!en Estates, and Los Trancos Woods. Blue Oaks, a planned unit development of 30 single-family residential home sites is approved for a 264 acre site located southwest of the subject property. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map establishes two land use designations for the subject property. The majority of the site is designated as Open Space-Controlled Development, which permits a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres. A strip of land located along the western boundary of the project site, which encompasses the Los Trancos Creek (adjacent to Los Traneos Road), is designated as Streamside Open Space. The subject property is located within the OS (Open Space) District. The OS District requires a minimum parcel size of 10 acres, except where clustered lots of less than 10 acres in size are proposed per PAMC Section 18.71.080. Other provisions of the OS District include specific limits for maximum impervious surface coverage (3.5%) per lot, project design compliance with the cluster principle and building height (25 feet). The purpose of the OS District is to protect and preserve open space land, while permitting some reasonable use. History of Project A Tentative Map application for the proposed 8 loi; single-family residential subdivision was initially filed with the City in 1994. The application remained incomplete for several years, pending the submittal of specific studies and plans. The Tentative Map application proposed eight, large lots encompassing the entire 151 acre site (lot sizes ranging from 10-34 acres, See Attachment 1A). In July 1996, an Environmental Assessment was completed consistent with the City’s environmental review procedures and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). pcs~tm.l~ 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190; 94-EIA-3 Page The assessment concluded that the proposed subdivision has the potential to result in significant environmental effects. Staff recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. A DEIR (Los Trancos Road Subdivision EIR) was completed in June 1997. AS required by CEQA, a 45-day public review has been observed (comment period from June 9, 1997 through July 28, 1997). As noted above, on July 30, 1997 and August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission completed the first phase of the review process. Prqiect Description Including Revisions Since the July 30, 1997 and August 13, 1997 Planning Commission hearings, the project sponsor has revised the Tentative Map (for comparison, initial Tentative Map presented in Attachment 1A with proposed revisions presented in Attachment 1B). The map refisions have been filed to implement a number of the required EIR mitigation measures and to. address City policy issues. TherefOre, the project description presented in this staff report, as well as the analysis, reflects the latest revisions to the map. The project proposes the subdivision of a 151.41 acre parcel into 8 single-family residential lots and one private open space/common area parcel of approximately 81+ acres. The hillside parcel is located in the Palo Alto foothills (See Attachment 1 for location map). The proposed lots would range in size from 4.91 to 11.60 acres. The specific details of the project and proposed improvements are presented as follows: Residential Lots. The subdivision proposes eight single-family residential lots, each designed with a designated building envelope area. In total, the lot areas would encompass 66 acres of the subject property (44.8% of the site). ¯ The building envelope areas cover approximate 6,300 square feet per lot (proposed 9,050 square feet of impervious surface allowance per lot), with envelope grades ranging from 2% to 3%. Building envelope areas have been relocated off of ddgetops for proposed lots #1, 2, 5 and 6; consistent with the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR. A private driveway has been identified for each residential 10t, providing access to the building envelope. These envelopes are not specifically defined, but are intended to identify a potential home site and an estimate on expected impervious surface coverage. While each lot is designed with a proposed building envelope area providing a general location, no easements or encumbrances are proposed which would a) require reeordation of the envelope with the map, or b) restrict the use of the lot area that is located outside of the building envelope zone. pesr-tm.lst Proposed Open Space (Lot #9, Private Open Space - Common Area). The revisions to the Tentative Map include the introduction of an 81.59 acre parcel which is designated as private open space/common area. This parcel (53.7% of the site area) circles the residential lots, encompassing a majority of the sloped, hillside areas along the western, southern and eastern borders of the site. The parcel is proposed to be owned and maintained by the association of homeowners within the subdivision. The following table presents an inventory of the proposed lots, which includes lot size, elevation and grade of building envelope area, as well as private driveway grades. pesr-tm.lst ~Lot No. ! 6’ 7 Subtotal 7.98 acres 8.40 acres 6.82 acres 4.91 a~res 9.91 acres 8.22 acres 8.29 acres 11.60 acres 66.13 acres 81.59 acres ** 150 feet 400 feet 550 feet 250 feet 350 feet 150 feet 650 feet 450 feet (Open Space) Los Traneos 2.27 acres ..... Road 60’ right-of-wa~, TOTAL 151.41 acres 4.7% % 32.5% 6.6% 3.0% 10.5% 17.26% 15.28% 828 feet 844 feet 913 feet 863 feet 874 feet 828 feet 863 feet 841 feet Lot #6 proposes an odd-shaped parcel. This parcel includes a "Paw, el A", an additional 0.5 acre space easement to the homeowners association for private open space/common area (as it is contiguous to Lot #9 for linking common aroa). The parcel also includes a developed barn and caretakers r~sidence, which would r~main. Does not include an additional 1.42 acres of common open space land across Los Traneos Road. Access and Circulation. The subdivision proposes access fi’om Los Trancos Road, a local, rural road. Access to Los Trancos Road would be via an existing graded road that is located at the northwest comer of the subject property. The subdivision would be served by a private access road (Tierra Arboles Road) and an emergency access road. As noted above, individual, private driveways are proposed to branch from the main access road through the single-family lots, to the proposed building envelope areas. A total of 5.0 acres would be devoted to access roads (excluding driveways for each lot), public utility easements (excluding individual septic system leackfields), and a 60- foot wide road fight-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. The main access road would extend from the northwest comer of the project site (intersection with Los Trancos Road) for approximately 2,800 feet (½ mile) to. a 60 pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3 Page 6 foot diameter cul-de-sac bulb, located at the ridgetop. The first 1,500 feet of the roadway would follow, for the most part, the alignment of the current, graded fire road. A paved road width of 22 feet is proposed within a 42 foot wide right-of-way. Improvements to the road would include two 11 foot wide travel lanes, a two foot unpaved shoulder and an open concrete drainage channel (V ditch), which would be situated on the up slope side of the road. No curbs, gutters or sidewalks are proposed. The grades of the main access road have been somewhat revised from the initial Tentative Map design. Specifically, portions of the road (five segments/stations) are proposed to exceed the 15% maximum grade permitted by the city Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20.210). DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.5-3(a) permits one 400 foot long portion of the road to be graded at a slope of up to 18%, provided that a scored, concrete road surface is provided. This segment is depicted on the map. However, the four other segments of the road, which have roadway grades of 15% to 18% do not comply with the DEIR mitigation measures. An emergency access road is proposed to extend from the main access road terminus (cul-de-sac). The emergency access road would traverse proposed lots #5 and #6, generally following the alignment of an existing, graded fire road. The emergency access road would continue north of the site, sharing an existing fire road (off site, rights of access limited to emergency ingress/egress) and terminating at the main’ access road intersection with Los Trancos Road. Consistent with the DEIR Mitigation Measures 5.5-3(b) and 5:5-3(c), the emergency access road is proposed to range from 12 feet (one travel lane) to 20 feet (one travel lane + turn-outs). This road would be maintained within a 24 foot wide easement. Roadway grades for this road would range from 1% to 15.4%, with one segment slightly exceeding 15%. This road would be surfaced with a single-seal oil and screening surface. A maintenance access road is proposed along the existing, graded fire trail (which traverses lots #3 and #4, through lot #9 to Foothills Park). Theroad would be partially improved to a new water tank site that is located on lot #9 (proposed open space), This existing road would be surfaced with a 6 inch thick layer of aggregate to the water tank site (elevation +990). As mentioned above, the proposed building envelope areas for each lot would be served by private access driveway, extending from the main access road. Individual driveway grades range from 3% to 32.5%. The private driveway grades and lengths are presented in the lot ,inventory table (above). The main access road, emergency vehicle access road, as well as the private individual driveways, would be privately owned and not dedicated to the City of Palo pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31 !i~~.~i~ Page Alto. Maintenance of the main, emergency and maintenance access roads would be the responsibility of the association of the eight lot owners/homeowners within the development. Maintenance of private driveways would be the responsibility of each lot owner. o Utilities and Services. While the subject property is located within the City of Palo Alto, the site is located outside of the City’s Urban Service Area boundaries. Historically, the City has provided services to other developed properties in the area, which are similarly located outside the urban service area boundaries. The project proposes that water, electricity and stormwater drainage services be provided by the City of Palo Alto. Given that the City does not provide gas service in the immediate area, the project proposes that this service be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). A water service connection to an.existing City line is proposed immediately north of the site. A water line is proposed to extend along the main access road to the road cul-de-sac, then extending either along the er_isting fire trail that traverses the southeast end of the site (proposed emergency vehicle access road), or along existing easements on the adjacent site, to points of service. The line would connect to a new water tank, which is proposed to be placed at the southeast comer of the subject property (elevation +990, see Tentative Map). The water tank is proposed to be a maximum size of 200,000 gallons and 42 feet in diameter. The tar& size is based on Fire Code requirements for domestic water service and fire flows for the subdivision. The City of Palo Alto does not provide wastewater disposal services (sanitary sewer) in the immediate area. The project proposes that each lot be served by a building septic system and accompanying leachfield. The location of the leachfields are presented on the Tentative Map. The latest revisions to the Tentative Map include a relocation of leachfields on proposed lots #2 and #3. This relocation is proposed to address DEIR mitigation measures, which require that the leacldields be located outside of areas with heavy tree cover. Leachfields for proposed lots #1 and #8 continue to be proposed on slopes in excess of 20%. The location and size of the leachfields were determined based on appropriate mantle testing, which is required by the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Services. This County department is responsible for reviewing, approving and permitting individual wastewater disposal systems. 5~Grading (Cut and Fill). Site development would involve grading to build roads, driveways, utilities and structures. The following chart presents the estimated amount of gradingthat would pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3111~~!~ Page 8 be required for subdivision design and individual lot development. Estimates for grading private driveways and building envelope areas are approximate, and based on the current area location, size and grade of these improvements. The specific location of and amount of grading for the private driveways and building areas would be determined at the lime of the subsequent Site and Design Permit process for each lot. Road Building 1. Tierra Arboles Road (main access road) 2. Emergency access road Utilities 1. Water Tank 2. On-Site Detention Basin 9,237 7,324 6,063 860 Total amount of earthrnovement for subdivision improvements 750 ’ 350 16,400 2,491 3,020 Residential.. Lot. Development 1. Private Driveways 2. Building envelope areas 50 25O 8,484 2,054 5,032 15,570"Total earthmovement 21,911 * Excess of 6,341 cubic yards requiring export. All road grading throughout the development is proposed to be designed using cut and fill banks with maximum slopes of 1.5:1. No retaining walls are proposed along the main access road, or along the emergency access road. Impervious Surface Coverage. PAMC Section 18.71.080 (OS District), establishes a 3.5% maximum impervious surface limit for each residential lot. While a determination on compliance with this provision of the OS District would typically be completed at the time of the Site and Design Permit process for each lot, the Tentative Map includes a building envelope area and private driveways for each lot. The initial Tentative Map proposed a subdivision of large lots (ranging in size from 10 to 34+ acres, see Attachment 1A), with no proposal for permanent open space. Impervious surface coverage was initially calculated on a lot-by-lot basis, with four of the lots (lots #5, 6, 7 and 8) exceeding the 3.5% limit. The latest Tentative Map revisions reduce the lot sizes and introduce a private open space/common area parcel. In this case, PAMC Section 18.71.080 permits the pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 Page 9 impervious surface coverage to be calculated slightly different than on a standard lot- by-lot basis. As such, the impervious surface coverage amounts are proposed as follows: Main Access Road (Tierra Arboles) .... Emergency Access Road Building Area Per Lot Private Driveways Per Lot Coverage of 24 foot wide road 73,288 width. Coverage of 12-20 foot width.46,100 Impervious surface allowance of 72,400 ...9,0~0 square fee! per lot. Water Tank* Existi.n.g, caretakers home, barns TOTAL (square feet): Lot # 1 - 1,800 SF Lot #2 - 4,800 SF Lot #3 - 6,600 SF Lot #4 - 3,000 SF Lot #5 - 4,200 SF Lot #6 - 1,800 SF Lot#7- 7,800 SF Lot#8- 5,490 SF Maximum 200,000 gallon water tank. Part of LOt #6 35,400 3,000 7,60~ 237,78~ 3.6%+ (3.6%**)Percent of Total Site Area Total site area *Water tank access road not included in impervious surface coverage as it is proposed to be surfaced with an aggregate base. +Assumes fully-paved private driveways; can be reduced by using a porous, pervious driveway surface **Less area of 2.27 acres for 60 foot wide Los Traneos Road right-of-way dedication. Please note that the impervious surface coverage amounts shown would exceed the 3.5% maximum. No variance or exception has been requested for this proposal; however, the project engineer has indicated that it is the intent to adjust these amounts so t.hat they are in compliance with the ordinance limits. These adjustments would include the possible use of a porous, permeable surface for the private driveways, which would not be counted as impervious surface coverage. Establishment of Homeowners Association/Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The current revisions to the Tentative Map include the introduction of a commonly held pared for private open space and subdivision improvements that require private ownership and maintenance (stormwater detention basin, water tank, main and pesr-tm.lst emergency access roads). A homeowner’s association is proposed to oversee this responsibility. The purpose and responsibilities of the association are presented in the draft CC&Rs (distributed to the Commission only). The draft CC&Rs also address ownership, maintenance and liability responsibilities of the association. Proposed dedication of right-of-way for Los Trancos Road. The current road improvements along Los Trancos Road are located on the subject property (area within boundaries of site). The Tentative Map proposes the dedication of a 60 foot right-of-way for a 1,650 foot long segment of Los Trancos Road that is located on the subject property. This offer proposes dedication of the right-of-way to the City of Palo Alto. The proposed 60 foot wide dedication represents the maximum right-of-way that would be necessary to accommodate full widening and improvements to Los Traneos Road. However, no modifications to the width of Los TrancosRoad are proposed by the project or planned by the City at this time. o Below Market Rate Housing Proposal. Consistent with Housing Element Program 13, the project proposes to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirements. The program, which is outlined in Attachment 6 of this staff report, proposes that the project sponsor pay in- lieu fees to comply with the BMR requirement. City staff has been negotiating the details of the proposal with the project sponsor. The current status of the proposal is discussed below (discussion in section entitled, Policy Implications). 10.Tentative Map and accompanying applications. A Tentative Map application has been filed to subdivide the subject property. This application is accompanied by a request for a conditional exception from the maximum 15% roadway grade limitations, permitted by PAMC Section 21.20.210, Subdivision Ordinance. The exception would permit portions of the main access road to be developed at slopes of upwards 18%. While this provision of the Subdivision Ordinance generally applies to public streets, these standards are also used in determining appropriate design requirements for private roads. A conditional exception is also requested.from the City’s minimum street standards for hillside areas (street standards are mandated by PAMC Section 21.28.020), The City’s street standards for local streets in hillside areas require a curb-to-curb road width of 30 feet and a right-of-way width of 50 feet. As described above, the project proposes an improved road width of 24 feet, and a right-of-way width of 42 feet. While all but one of the lots (lot#8) would be les._As than the minimum 10 acre size, these reduced lot sizes would not require the approval of a conditional exception. Per pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 Page 11 Clustered PAMC Section 18.71.080 (Maximum Building Coverage), lots of less than 10 acres in size are permitted, where the subdivision has been designed to contain an area undevelopable by an open space restriction (proposed lot #9). The Tentative Map and conditional exceptions require review and action by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition, PAMC Section 16.48.050c (Architectural Review) requires that the Architectural Review Board review and make recommendations on the proposed subdivision improvements. The Tentative Map application and request for conditional exception are not accompanied by any other applications. Given that the project is proposed to be developed under the provisions of the current OS District, future development of each lot would be subject to a Site and Design Review approval. The Site and Design Review requires review by the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council. Project Review and Recommendations by the Architectural Review Board Typically, the Architectural Review Board does not review Tentative Maps for the subdivision of land. However, in this case, the ARB is required to review and make recommendations on the subdivision improvements for a proposed single-family residential subdivision that is located in the OS (Open Space) District. PAMC Section 16.48.050c (Architectural Review, Applicability) states as follows: "... The Architectural Review Board shall make a recommendation on the design of all of the following projects: c) Unless the application is diverted for administrative approval pursuant to Chapter 18.99,. any development, construction or improvement in any OS District ..., except singly developed single-family dwellings..." Per the provisions of PAMC Section 16.48.090(c), the Board is required to review the design and grading for the main access road, the proposed water tank and the proposed on-site stormwater detention basin (proposed between lots #1 and #2). The Board’s authority is limited to the review of these improvements. On November 6, 1997, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposed subdivision improvements. On a 4-0 vote, the Board recommended conditional approval of the subdivision improvements based on the Architectural Review findings (provided in~ Attachment 2A) and subject to recommended conditions of approval. The Board made the following additions/changes to the recommended conditions, which are incorporated into ¯ Attachment 3: pcsr-tm.lst Tree planting required to mitigate tree loss shall be planted at varying sizes, as recommended by the City’s Planning Arborist (See condition 5b.(7)). The recommended condition requiring a 5-year monitoring of the tree replanting program (condition 46 ~) shall be expanded. The condition shall include a provision that would permit the City Planning Arborist to require additional monitoring time (beyond the first 5 years) in the event the success of the program is not met within the first 5 years. The Board recommended an additional condition requiring measures for long-term drainage and water quality control. In addition to the above, the Board supported the mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Impact Report and specifically supported measures that would ultimately control or restrict the color of window glazing and skylights. POLICY IMPLICATIONS A detailed list of all Comprehensive Plan policies that are pertinent to the proposed project is provided in Section 5 of the DEIR. This section of the DEIR also provides a chart/table (Exhibit 5.1-1, pages 5.1-9 through 5.1-19) reviewing the initial subdivision design for compliance and~or conformance with City policies and provisions. While the DEIR concludes that the project would not resUlt in any significant, unavoidable land use impacts (impacts which cannot be mitigated), it was found that the design and layout of the map would need to be revised in order to be in conformance with all pertinent City policies, programs and provisions. The revised Tentative Map has been filed to address these issues. This revised Tentative Map has been reviewed for compliance with City goals and policies. The significant policy and planning issues that have been identified are addressed below. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element The proposed project would be consistent with all pertinent Housing Element policies. Specifically, the project would be consistent with Policy 1, in that it proposes to maintain the general low-density character of the existing single-family area. The project proposes an average daily density Of 1 unit per 18.8 acres, which is below the maximum permitted density of 1 unit per 10 acres. In addition, the proposed project density is generally lower than other developed and/or approved residential projects in the area (See Attachment 7 for table comparing project with other development "m area). The proposed reduction in lot sizes and the introduction of a separate, private open space/eornmon area pared, would preclude any potential for future subdivision of the land.. In addition, the project would be consistent with Policy 3, in that it would not adversely affect existing residential neighborhoods in pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-31.:... :~ -..e..v..~a!o ::.~i~! z...l:~.~..-7. ...... Page 13 Palo Alto. Policy 7 and Program 13 of the Housing Element encourage the development of new affordable housing units and require that new developments be designed to provide or incorporate Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Although a 15% BMR requirement is a general rule for projects on 5 acres or more, a lower 10% requirement is generally acceptable within the OS District. Since the OS District is intended to provided maximum preservation of lands in open space, a lower BMR requirement is an acceptable incentive for lowering project densities. The project sponsor has been worldng with the City staff to determine an appropriate BMR agreement. While construction of on-site BMR units is preferred and is the City’s first priority in complying with this policy, staffhas found that the payment of in-lieu fees for this project, is an appropriate approach to meeting the City’s BMR requirement. The in-lieu fees that are expected to be collected from the development of the 8 single-fami.’ly residential lots would go further towards funding affordable housing in the community than the on-site construction of BMR units. A draft BMR Agreement has been prepared and forwarded to the property owner (see Attachment 6, letter to John Arrillaga from Ken Schreiber, dated June 1, 1997). The draft agreement proposes payment of fees in two stages, which is based on 1) the appraised value of the vacant lots and 2) the estimated value of improvements to be constructed. The payment schedule recommends that the housing mitigation fee on all 8 vacant lots be paid prior to the approval of the Final Subdivision Map by the City Council. A further mitigation fee, based on the estimated value of the proposed improvements, would be paid at the time of the first building permit issued for each lot. Transportation Element The project would be consistent with Policy 4 and Policy 5 of the Transportation Element in that, it would not 1) result in a significant increase in traffic on existing residential streets, and 2) the project would not signiticanfly impact operational levels (Levels of Service) along exis ",ting streets and at local intersections. The DEIR analyzed project traffic in detail and concluded that the project would not result in significant traffic generation or operational impacts at local intersections. Urban Design Element Urban Design Policy 1 addresses the need to maintain the present scale of the City. The proposed revisions to the Tentative Map include the relocation of four building envelope areas, which would reduce project visibility. However, full compliance with pcsr-tm.lst Page 14 this policy would occur with additional recommended revisions to the map. Recommended revisions include 1) a realign_rnent of the main access road (along the hilltop) and 2) implementation of a tree replanting program, which would facilitate further clustering of building envelope areas and reduce project scale (recommendations outlined in Discussion section of this report). Open Space Element The revised Tentative Map has been reviewed for consistency with the Open Space Element. The revised Tentative Map, as recommended by conditions of approval, would conform with Open Space Policy 4, which encourages the protection of scenic areas from deterioration. Specifically, the map revisions incorporate the relocation of building envelope areas below ridgetops. Additionally, recommended conditions of approval require implementation of a tree planting program and additional revisions to the layout and design of the map (outlined in the Discussion section of this staff report) to further reduce project visibility. The revised Tentative Map would conform with Open Space Policy 11, which encourages that new residential developments provide maximum amounts of open space. The revised Tentative Map introduces a permanent, private open space/common area parcel, which would encompass approximately 54% of the site. Environmental Resources Element The revised Tentative Map has been reviewed for consistency with pertinent Environmental Resources Element policies and programs. The revised Tentative Map, as recommended by conditions of approval, would conform with all Environmental Resource Element policies, including Policy I and Policy 14. Policy 1 encourages that new projects minimize the quantity and effects of water run-off. Mitigation measures that are recommended in the DEIR (specifically measures 5.2-6 and 5.3-2) would bring the project into conformance with this policy. Mitigation Measure 5.2-6 requires that all retaining structures (e.g., retaining walls) be designed with adequate drainage to prevent failure. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 5.3-2 recommends that effects on water run-off be mitigated through either 1) construction of an on-site stormwater retention basin, or 2) realignment of the proposed main access road along the property hilltop, so that it follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire access road. Recommendation conditions of approval require additional revisions to the layout of the map, which include the realignment of the main access .road and elimination of the on-site stormwater detention basin (outlined in the Discussion section of the report).. Environmental Resource Policy #14 requires that measures be imposed to lessen risk : i:...’.-’---~.:.::::.:~:~:..i.?~; ~ :~:?’::’,,.’:: ~ :::~..::..::’..-~.:.:;.:-:.-: ~ .:..-: :.~ .....:.., ~,~94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31..i~::~: ...........: .............~:. :!.,. :: ~:...::::!...,..:..:~..::..::!.:.:~ pesr-tm.lst Page 15 to human life and property. The subject property is located in an area of seismic risk. Landsliding on the project site could continue to occur, which could be a risk to people and property improvements. Conditions of approval are recommended to address DEIR Mitigation Measures 5.2-1 and 5.2-7, which require proper slope stabilization and design of improvements in accordance with the California UBC Zone 4 Standards. Open Space Development Criteria Project review for consistency with the City’s Open Space Development Criteria is provided in Attachment 5A. These criteria were approved by separate City Council action; they are not a part of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, nor to the provisions of the OS District. The criteria generally mirror the provisions of the OS District. Therefore, project consistency with these criteria would be the same as project compliance with the design and site planning objectives of the OS District (discussed below). Conformance with the Portola Valley Design Guidelines During the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) process for the DEIR, it was requested that the project be reviewed for compliance with the Town of Portola Valley Design Guidelines. While the subject property is not within the boundaries of the Town of Portola Valley, it is included in the Town’s planning area. Exhibit 5,1-2 (pages 5.1-20 through 5.1-22) of the DEIR provide a review of the initial subdivision design for consistency with the Portola Valley Design Guidelines. Attachment 5B of this staff report provides a review of the revised Tentative Map for consistency with the pertinent guidelines. It was also requested that the DEIR include a comparison of the project with other residential developments in the area (specifically those developments within Portola Valley). A table comparing the revised Tentative Map with the existing and/or approved development projects in the area is provided in Attachment 7 of this staff report. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Subdivision Design and LaFout The general design and layout of the revised Tentative Mapis a great improvement over the initial subdivision design.. The revised map introduces permanent open space, reduces lot sizes, relocates building envelopes on four prominent lots and implements numerous mitigation measures presented in the DEIR. Specific review of the map and improvements present the following findings: pcs~tm.l~ 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 Page 16 Residential lots. The residential lots are proposed to be an average of 8.26 acres in size, which is-compatible with the lot sizes that are recorded for the contiguous Hewlett and Lee subdivisions (See Attachment 7 for comparison). However, lot #8 should be reduced to less than 10 acres in size. In order to apply the impervious surface coverage limits to the subdivision as a whole (rather than on a lot-by-lot basis), all !ots in the subdivision must be less than 10 acres in size. pcsr-tm.lst Building envelopes are commonly required for hillside subdivisions. As mentioned above, the 6,300 square foot "circular" envelopes that are proposed are not specifically defined in the project description. Furthermore, the proposed envelopes are intended to identify the potential. location of homes o~ and to provide an estimate on impervious surface coverage (9,050 square feet per lot, exclusive of driveways). These envelopes-are not intended to include ancillary uses/structures. It is recommended that a building envelope area be identified, def’med and recorded for each lot. In this case, defined envelopes are appropriate to a) ensure that future development on the lots is confmed and/or localized to the most appropriate portions of the lot and b) to further promote the clustering of improvements, consistent with the "cluster principle". The envelope should be designed and sized to provide adequate area for a home, ancillary uses and structures, driveway and parking and usable, outdoor area. In order to accommodate these uses in one area, an envelope size of approximately 20,000 is reasonable. Recommended revisions to the map that are graphically presented in Attachment 4, present a 20,000 square foot building envelope area per lot. These areas represent the following: a. The location of the recommended envelopes are generally consistent with the envelope locations depicted in the 8-lot cluster alternative assessed in the DEIR (where main access road follows alignment of existing, graded fire road). b.The envelopes are recommended to be rectangular in shape (rather than circular) so that they can be easily defined by meets and bounds. e. Envelopes immediately fronting the main access road are defined by a 30 foot front yard setback, .consistent with the provisions of the OS Dislrict. The envelope should be identified on the Final Map and recorded with a meets and bounds desc~’ption. The envelope should also be included in the deed for each lot, which provides direct notice to future lot owners. Recommended conditions of approval include specific language for defining Page 17 building envelopes and use of lot area located outside the boundaries of the envelope; this language should be included on the Final Map and in the deed for each lot. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (outlined below and as depicted in Attachment 4) require a relocation of the main access road so that it aligns with the existing, graded fire road. Relocation of this access road would require adjustments in lot lines and the location of building areas. These modifications would result in a tighter clustering of development. Proposed Private Open Space/Common Area. The latest revisions to the map propose over 81 acres of hillside area for ¯ private openspace/common area. This land area represents 54% of the total site area. By comparison, the proposedprivate open space/common area is greater than the mount of open space that was preserved for the Hewlett (56 acres, 52% of site) and the Lee Subdivision (19 acres, 38% of the site). In order to ensure that this land (lot #9) is maintained as open space in perpetuity, it is recommended that the Final Map and CC & Rs identify this area as "Permanent Private Open Space/Common Area". An accompanying definition for this area should note that the parcel is a non-development area, which is to serve as open space and common area for residents of the subdivision. Use of this parcel should be restricted to passive recreation (hiking, viewing), pedestrian access, roads for subdivision and emergency access and utilities. pcsr-tm.lst Access, On-site Circulation and Grading. The proposed grading along the main access road would result in large cut and fill slope banks. The cut and fill banks are proposed to be graded at slopes of 1.5:1. At one location (approximately 400 feet from the main access road entrance), 40 feet of fill is proposed to meet road grade limits. In order to comply with maximum road grade limitations, the large cut and fill slope banks would result in significant tree removal. This is of particular concern given a) proximity to Los Trancos Road and b) that the geotechnical investigation prepared for the site, as well as the DEIR, identify a landslide in this area. Earth movement and tree loss can be significantly reduced by introduein.g retaining walls to replace and/or minimize cut and fall slope banks. The DEIR recommends use of retaining walls (see Mitgafion Measures 5.2-1, 5.2-3, and 5.8-1). Mitigation 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 :.~t~l.ord::..!::it:.:..i!. . Page 18 measures for the landslide do not require a regrading of the slope bank and associated tree removal. See Attachment 9, letter from United Soils Engineering, Inc., which recommends use of a subsurface retaining wall or "stitch-pin" pier system. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map are discussed below. These recommendations include the use of retaining walls and realigning the first 400 feet of the main access road to eliminate the 40 feet of fill proposed near the project entrance. pesr-tm.lst Five segments/stations of the main access road and one segment of the emergency vehicle access road are proposed with slope grades in excess of 15%. With the exception of one segment of the main access road (400 foot long portion of the road to be graded at a slope of up to 18%), the road grades should be modified to comply with the maximum 15% grade (see¯DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.5-3). Additional recommended revisions to the map which address this issue, are presented below. The emergency vehicle access road is proposed to commence at the main access road cul-de-sac. The emergency vehicle access road would extend through a grove of oak trees and then follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire trail. Tree removal can be minimized/eliminated by realigning this access road to use the existing, graded fn’e road. Recommended, additional revisions to the map (discussed below) address this issue (see DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.2-3). Portions of the main access road (near Los Trancos Road entrance), and the emergency vehicle access road (eastern slope grade) are in areas whichare subject to landsliding. Additional investigation and remediation measures will be required for these areas for slope stabilization. The additional investigation and measures Should be completed during preparation of the Final Map and Improvement Plans (see DEIR Mitigation Measures 5.2-1, 5.2-3, 5-2.4, and 5-2.5). As noted in the project description, several of the lots proposes driveway grades in excess of 15%. Recommended conditions of approval require that the subdivision CC & Rs include a provision that all private driveways for individual lots not ex(eed a slope of 15%. Utilities and Services. * On-site Water Tank and Water Service The proposed water tank is appropriately located at elevation +990, in order to meet water pressure demands for the subdivision. A 200,000 gallon tank has been proposed to address the maximum needs for domestic and fire flow requirements (worst case). While a 200,000 gallon water tank has been proposed to meet domestic and fire flow requirements, it is possible that a significantly smaller tank can accommodate the needs of the project. A final, detailed water study is required during the preparation of the Final Map and Improvement Plan to confirrn the specific tank size. pcsr-tm.lst The water tank is proposed at a location that is heavily Vegetated and immediately accessible to a graded fire trail. While the tank is not expected to be visible from significant, off-site vantage points (See FEIR/Response to Comments document, computer-generated visual simulation for additional project alternative), recommended conditions of approval require the following: a. The tank shall be partially buried. This can be easily accommodated given that the tank is proposed in a sloped area. b. The final tank color shall be selected to blend with the wooded setting (see Mitigation Measures 5.7-4g and 5.8-1). * On-site Stormwater Detention Basin As described above, a stormwater detention basin is proposed at the upper reaches of an existing swale, located between proposed lots # 1 and #2. The basin is proposed to be approximately 100 feet by 170 feet in size, and would be located in a heavily wooded area. The purpose of the stormwater detention basin is to capture and detain run-off from the watershed during peak flow conditions. The association of homeowner’s within the development would be responsible for maintaining the basin. In addition, a sinking fund would need to be established to ensure the costs for long- term maintenance of the facility. The DEIR concludes that the stormwater detention basin is not necessary, ffthe main access road is relocated to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road along the. hilltop. This realignment is recommended as a revision to the design and layout of the map, which is discussed below (see Mitigation Measures 5.3-2, 5.3-3, and 5.6-7). It should be noted that ddetion of the stormwater detention basin eliminates a number of concerns raised by the Santa Clara Valley Water Dislrict (SCVWD) and by other numerous commentors during the DEIR review process. While SCVWD permits would still be required for all construction within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek and Buckeye Creek, their review and approval of a detailed Page 20 design and calculations fo~ the detention basin would no longer be required. * Individual Septic System/Leachfields The DEIR concludes that the soils on the site are suitable to accommodate individual septic leachfields for each site. Detailed mantle/percolation tests were completed to determine that there is appropriate percolation to provide a safe and effective septic systems on each lot. As recommended in the DEIR, septic leach.fields for lots #2 and #3 have been relocated outside of heavily wooded areas. However, leach.fields continue to be proposed on slopes in excess of 20% for lots #1 and #8. Mitigation measure 5.3-6 recommends that either a) the leachfields be relocatedto slopes of less than 20% or b) a specific engineering study be conducted to. determine special design features for the proposed leachfields on these lots. Given that review and approval of permits for individual septic systems is the authority of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services, recommended conditions of approval-require that the leachfields be relocated or that a specific engineering study be performed, prior to the submittal of a Final Map. Impervious Surface Coverage As explained, with the introduction of an open space/common area parcel and the downsizing of lots, impervious surface coverage is being determined for the subdivision, as a whole, rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. Typically, a lot-by-lot determination of impervious surface coverage would occur at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot. However, given that coverage for the entire subdivision is being analyzed, it is appropriate to determine these limits as part of the map process. The project, as a whole, would result in approximately 3.66% of impervious surface coverage (less land area for dedication of Los Traneos Road right- of-way). It is recommended that the coverage be reduced to meet the maximum 3.5% code requirement. Secondly, it is recommended that an impervious surface allowance be established for each lot (to include both building envelope and driveway coverage). The allowance would be recorded with the Final Map and as part of the deed for each lot. The subdivision and lot coverage allowance should be determined as follows: a. Precise property acreage shall be determined to establish a baseline for this calculation. This acreage shall discount the land area necessary for the 60 foot wide right-of-way dedication along Los Trancos Road. b. Impervious surface coverage shall be first determined for the main and 94-SUB-5, 97-ARBo 190, 94-EIA-31 .... o~S!ons.].].....].~.~ ............................................................. .~ Page 21 emergency access roads, the existing caretakers home and barn (7,600 square feet) and the on-site water tank. c. The impervious surface coverage that is remaining to maintain the .maximum permitted code allowance of 3.5% shall be proportioned to each lot for both building envelope and driveway improvements. Based on the latest Tentative Map design/layout, an allowance of approximately 12,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage would be established for each 10t, i.n order to comply with the 3.5% limit (as compared to the proposed 13,475 square feet per lot). This allowance amount would change with the recommended revisions to the layout of the Tentative Map. Therefore, recommended conditions of approval require that the impervious surface calculations and lot allowance be determined at the time of the preparation of the Final Map (based on recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map). Review of Draft Conditions, Covenants and Reslrictions While this draft document addresses the subdivision improvements and the responsibilities of the homeowners association, there are many issues that have not been incorporated. The Final CC & Rs should include the following additional provisions/information: a. Provisions noting that each lot is subject to Site and Design Review by the City of Palo Alto and that a specific building envelope is recorded for each lot. b.Provisions noting that all lot development is subject to the requirements and mitigation measures of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan/Program. This provision should Cite all mitigation measures and requirements that are pertinent to individual lot development (listed Attachment 3, draft condition 20). c. A more defined definition for the private open space/common area parcel (lot #9), as well as prohibitions regarding the sale, transfer or lease of this land for the purposes of land development or further subdivision. d. Requirements for the homeowner’s associations responsibilities for on- going maintenance and monitoring of subdivision improvements, tree replanting program and Fuel Modification Plan. Compliance with Proiect EIR Mitigation Measures The revisions to the Tentative Map address many of the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR and FEIR/Response to Comments. However, additional revisions to the design and layout of the map are recommended to fully address all pcsr-tm.lst Page 22 mitigation measures. These recommended revisions are discussed below. The following is a summary of those pertinent mifigaton measures, which are not fully addressed under the latest revisions to the Tentative Map: Impact 5.2-8 (Artificial Fill) A large area of fill has been placed in the meadow, located near the property ridgetop (area of proposedlots #3 and #4 and cul-de-sac). The last 450-500 feet of the main access road is proposed to traverse this meadow area. Mitigation for placement of the main access road at this location (Mitigation Measure 5.2-8) is a) installation of the a stormwater detention basin (as proposed), and b) stabilization of an off-site access road (lands of Strauss). As an alternative to these improvements, this DEIR mitigation measure recommends a realignment of the main access road to follow the existing, graded fire road along the property hilltop. Following the alignment of the existing, graded fn’e road would eliminate the need for an on-site stormwater detention basin, and off-site slope stabilization. Additional, recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map address this issue (see discussion below). Impact 5.3-2 (Site Peak FI0W Rates), Impact 5.3-3 (Flooding) and Impact 5.3-4 (Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation). The main access road, as proposed, would result in a significant increase in downstream run-off peak flow rates, erosion and sedimentation and aggravation of flooding. The mitigation for this additional run-off is to construct the on-site stormwater detention basin and stabilize off-site access roads (lands of Strauss), or to realign the main access road, as discussed in item #1, above (DEIR Mitigation Measures 5.3-2, 5.3-3 and 5.3-4). As noted above, recommended revisions to the map require that the main access road follow the alignment of the existing graded fire road, located on the property hilltop. The realignment of this road .would also assist in relocating b~lding envelopes, which would further minimize run-off into the watershed. pcsr-tm.lst Impact 5.5-3 (Project Access and Internal Circulation) The latest revisions to the Tentative Map still propose road slope grades in excess of 15%. Mitigation Measures 5.5-3a, 5.5-3b and 5.5-3e require that road slopes (main access, eraergeney vehicle access and private driveways) not exceed a 15% grade, with the exception of one segment along the main access road. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map address this issue (discussed below). It should be noted that by relocating 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-31 Page 23 the main access road (to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road) additional clustering of building envelopes could be accomplished, thus reducing the lengths of private driveways. Reduced driveway lengths for ,lots #3, #7 and #8 could bring them into conformance with the maximum slope grade limits. Impact 5.5-6 (On-Site Pedestrian Pathways) Mitigation for thisimpact requires the incorporation of on-site pedestrian pathways. The latest Tentative Map revisions do not address this measure. Additional recommended revisions to layout of the map would require incorporation of a separate pedestrian path along the hilltop portion of the main access road. Pedestrian use of the water tank access/fire trail (Trapper’s Trail) and the emergency vehicle access road should be permitted and established by easement on the Final Map. It is not recommended that a separate pedestrian path be provided along the incline portion of the main access road (first 1,800 feet), Road widening necessary to accommodate a separate pedestrian path would result in excessive grading and tree removal. Impact 5.6-8 (Tree Loss) The proposed subdivision improvements would result in the removal of mature trees (tree removal mounts discussed in following sub-section of this staff report). Tree loss can be reduced by relocating a portion of the emergency access road and introducing retaining walls along the main access ’road. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map address this issue (discussed below). Mitigation for Impact 5.6-8 also requires a tree replanting program. A detailed tree replanting plan would be required at the. time of Final Map and Improvement Plan review. It is recommended that the detailed plan be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board prior to Final Map approval by the City Council. The recommended revisions to the Tentative Map (discussed below) include potential areas for tree replanting. Several areas have been identified where new tree planting would also assist in screening the development from Portola Valley. Impact 5.8-1 through 5.8-5 (Visual Impacts) The revised Tentative Map includes the placement of a new water tank at elevation +990. While the tank is not expected to be visible, the use of an earthtone color is recommended for screening (See FEIR/Response to Comments document, Section 9.4 for computer-generated visual simulations pcsr-im.lst 94-SUB- 5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3 Page 24 of additional project alternative and water tank). In addition, it is recommended that the tank be partially buried. Recommended conditions of approval address this issue. Impact 5.8-8 (Light and Glare) Although the revisions to the Tentative Map do not include street lighting along the m~a access road, some fighting may be necessary for security and safety. Recommended mitigation for Impact 5.8-8 requires the use of low- intensity lighting, that is designed to focus downward. This measure is addressed in recommended conditions. Compliance with Provisions of the OS District and Zoning Ordinance The revised Tentative Map has been reviewed for compliance with PAMC Title 18 (Zoning): Specifically, the project has been reviewed for compliance with Chapter 18.71 (Open Space District Regulations). Comments are as follows: Section 18.71.070 requires a minimum lot/parcel size of 10 acres. With the exception of one lot (lot #8), all lots are less than 10 acres in size. While the lot sizes do not comply with this section of the ordinance, Section 18.71.080 (Maximum Building Coverage) encourages the clustering of lots and lot sizes of less than 10 acres. Compliance with Section 18.71.080 (Maximum Building Coverage), which would require that all lots be less than 10 acres does no._.3t require the approval of an exception or variance to lot/parcel size. Additional recommended revisions include a requirement to reduce the size of lot #8 to less than 10 acres. Section 18.71.080 establish maximum impervious area and building coverage. Each lot is allowed a maximum 3.5% impervious surface coverage (generally on a lot-by-lot basis). However, when lots are clustered and less than 10 acres in size, a 3.5% maximum permitted impervious surface coverage can be based on the entire pared area (proportioned to each lot). The project proposes lots which are less than 10 acres in size, with the exception of lot #8. For compliance with this provision, staffwill be recommending to the Planning Commission that a) lot #8 be reduced to less than 10 acres in size, b) a maximum impervious surface coverage allowance be established for each lot and c) that the project adhere to the 3.5% impervious surface limits. Furthermore, additional revisions to the design and layout of the map would promote further clustering and thus reduce impervious surface coverage (reduced driveway lengths). Additional recommended map revisions are outlined in the Discussion section of this pcsr-tm.lst Page 25 report. Section 18.71.140 establish special regulations for development in the OS District. Project compliance with these regulations is as follows: a. Preparation and submittal of a geotectmical soils and investigation report. A geotechnical investigation was prepared by a licensed engineer .and reviewed by a geotechncial engineering firm hired by the City. The recommendations of this investigation are incorporated into the project DEIR. b. Existing, natural vegetation and land forms shall remain in a natural state. The revised Tentative Map has been designed to concentrate site grading and development on areas of the site which have already been disturbed (e.g. existing fire access road). However, additional recommended revisions to the map (as outlined in the Discussion section of this report), would further reduce impacts to these resources. Recommended revisions include reductions in cut and fill slope banks along the main access road and elimination of the on-site stormwater detention basin. In addition, recommended conditions of approval require proposed improvements to be relocated outside of heavily wooded areas, to the extent feasible. c.The grading that is proposed must be compatible with adjacent areas, and will result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. While grading for the proposed project has been localized, staff recommends further modifications to road and site grading to reduce tree removal and Earth movement. Recommended revisions to the site grading are presented in the Discussion section of this report. d. The OS District requires the implementation of soil erosion and sediment control measures for any proposed grading activities. The mitigation measures presented in the DEIR require the development of an erosion and sediment control plan at the time of Final Map preparation and review. e. All divisions of land into four or more parcels shall be designed on the cluster principle, and shall be designed to minimize roads, cut and fill, and grading operations. In addition, development shall be located in less, rather than more, conspicuous areas of the site. The revised Tentative Map partially responds to this requirement of the OS District. The proposed subdivision introduces permanent open space and provides .for some additional clustering of development. Full compliance with this section of the OS District can be achieved through additional revisions to the layout of the map. Realignment of the main pcsr-tm.lst Page 26 access road would reduce grading, would permit a fighter grouping of building envelope areas and would eliminate the need for the on-site stormwater detention basin (as.outlined in the Discussion section of this report). ~bmpliance with City’s Tree Preservation and Management Requirements (PAMC Chapter 8.1 O) Much of the subject property is located in an oak woodland. The property contains many coast live oak and valley oak trees, which are of a size defined as "protected trees" under PAMC Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). A protected tree that is subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.10, has a mink diameter of 11.5" or more, when measured 4.25 feet above natural grade. ’ The DEIR concludes that the project would result in the removal of as many as 196 to 290 trees (See Impact 5.6-8, Tree Loss, pgs. 5.6-27-5.6-31). Many of these trees are coast live oak or valley oak species, which meet minimum ordinance size. The subdivision improvements to the Tentative Map propose tree removal in the following areas: 1. Along the main access road, commencing at the project entrance to an area immediately beyond the "hair-pin" turn; 2.Along the emergency access road, immediately beyond the terminus of the proposed main access road cul-de-sac; 3.In the area of the proposed stormwater detention basin; and 4.In the area of the proposed water tank. In addition to the above, "protected trees" are found on designated building envelopes for proposed lots #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6.-Some tree removal within these envelopeS- is likely, depending upon ultimate design and layout of lot improvements. A recentsurvey of trees (with trunk diameters of 6" or greater) was completed. The surveyed trees are noted and numbered on the revised Tentative Map. Tree species, size and condition of each tree has been determined by a certified arborist (see Attachment 8 for tree inventory, including size, species and condition). Approximately 250-260 trees were surveyed in the area of proposed development (did ~ not include the wooded areas in and around the stormwater detention basin or entrance to the emergency vehicle access road). Species of trees surveyed include Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Black Oak, Redwood, Toyon, California Laurel, California Buckeye and Pacific Madrone. A total of 107 of the 250-260 trees that were surveyed are classified as "protected trees" by PAMC Chapter 8.10. Of this 107, 32 have been rated as fair to good (rating of 2 and 3), 70 were rated as in poor condition (rating of 1) and seven were identified as dead. Estimated removal for construction of the subdivision improvements is as follows: pcsr-tm.lst Improvement Main Acces~ Road "Hair-pin" turn in main access road Water Tank Entrance to emergency vehicle access road TOTAL:** Rating 1 (poor) 23 Tree Removal Rating 2-3 (fair to good) 24 2 7 Total 47 6 7 8 68** Specific trees not surveyed in this area; recommended revisions to map require a relocation of the access road to avoid tree removal Totals do not include tree removal in area of proposed stormwater detention basin or on lots #2, 3, 4,5&6. The proposed removal of "protected trees" as part of the subdivision-is addressed under the following section of PAMC Chapter 8.10: 8.10.050 ProhibitedActs. ’ c) In all circumstances other than those described in Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, no protected trees shall be removed unless one of the following applies: (2) removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 16. 48 of this code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise - permissible building area by more than 25%. In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual." While removal of "protected trees" is authorized under this section of the Municipal Code, it must be found that proposed improvements would be restricted by 25%, if the protected trees are maintained. Subdivision improvement compliance with this section of the Tree Preservation Ordinance is as follows: Main Access Road. The building area for the main access road would be 100% restricted flail "protected trees" are to be maintained. It would be impossible to retain a_!ll of the "protected trees" along the proposed alignment of the main access road. Furthermore, there are no other feasible points of access to the site which would result in a lower number of"proteeted trees" that would be removed. The existing access road that runs along the northeastern border pcsrotm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3 Page 28 of the site appears to be a possible, alternative access to the project. Use of this access road would also result in less tree removal. However, the project sPonsor secures an emergency ingress and egress easement ~ over this road. Therefore, use of the existing, graded fire road is the only appropriate and logical option for the main access road, as the area is already disturbed and trees have already been removed. While no tree removal is possible to accommodate the main access road, the amount of tree removal can be reduced by minimizing cut and fill slopes and introducing retaining walls. Additional recommended revisions to the Tentative Map address this issue (discussed below). Emergency Access Road. As mentioned above, one portion of the emergency access road would traverse through an area of oak woodland. Tree removal can be eliminated in this area by relocating this access road (DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.5-3). Recommended revisions to the Tentative Map address this issue (discussed below). On-site Stormwater Detention Basin. As mentioned above, the proposed 170 foot by 100 foot stormwater detention basin (located between lots #1 and #2) is in an area of oak woodland. While no specific survey of trees has been completed for this area, construction of this basin would likely require the removal of "protected trees". Recommended revisions to the Tentative Map (discussed below) require a realignment of the main access road. Realignment of this main access road would eliminate the need for the detention basin improvement. o Water Tank. As noted above, the water tank is located in an area of oak woodland. Approximately seven "protected trees" would be removed for construction of the tank. The building area for the proposed water tank would be restricted by 25% or more, if all "protected trees" are to be maintained. While there are other areas of the site where a water tank can be located, none of the areas have a) the required site elevation (for water pressure), b) the direct access to an existing graded road (graded fire road) and c) the capabilities of being well screened from off-site. Residential lots. pesr-tm.lst Page 29 As noted above, "protected trees" are found on designated building envelopes for lots #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (as outlined below) include recommended adjustments to building envelope locations for lots #2, #3, #4 and #6. The recommended envelope, locations for these lots (depicted on Attachment 4) are in areas where there is minimal tree cover. Lot #5 is located in an areaof dense tree cover. There are no suitable building envelope areas on lot #5 that are completely free of tree cover. Therefore, it is likely that removal of "protected trees" will be required for development of the lot (for home and driveway construction). Recommended conditions of approval require the following at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot: a.Preparation of a tree survey/inventory. b.Designing structures and driveways to minimize tree removal. c.Require tree replanting for any loss of"proteeted trees". The DEIR (Mitigation Measure 5.6-8 - Tree Loss) and recommended conditions require a tree replanting program for tree loss along the main access road and at the water tank site. Potential areas for tree replanting are as follows and are graphically depicted in Attachment 4 (Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15, 1997) of this staff report: 1. Replanting along the main access where tree removal and grading is consistent with the approved Tentative Map. Planting of two open grassland areas located on the southwestern slopes of lots # 1 and #8. The lot # 1 planting area includes the graded area around the "hair-pin" turn in the main access road. The lot #8 planting area is directly below the proposed building envelope and leaehfield area for this lot. Planting in the regraded hilltop meadow located in the area of proposed lots #3 and #4 (area of artificial fill). Along the emergency access road, Where slope stabilization is required. The fi~-size graphic of Attachment 4 is on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment and will be presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires that the tree replanting program be monitored for success over a five year period following installation. The success of pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31 Page 30 the program will need to be based on planting performance standards that are established by a certified arborist. The specific requirements and specifications for this program are identified in recommended conditions of approval. Compliance with Cit~ Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Title 21) The proposed Tentative Map is subject to the provisions of PAMC Title 21 (Subdivision Ordinance). A summary of proposed project compliance with the subdivision ordinance is provided as follows: Section 21.20.060 (Drainage) requires that all lots be created to drain to a public street. This section permits alternative drainage patterns which may be necessary to avoid excessive grading. The subdivision improvements include the development of an on-site detention basin, which would direct lot drainage into watershed Subarea 3 (down slope of lots #1, #2, #3 and #4). Recommended revisiom to the map require a realignment of the main access road to follow the existing, graded fire road located on the hilltop. This realignment would eliminate the need for the on-site stormwater detention basin and would minimize additional runoff into watershed Sub- area 3. pcsr-tm.lst Section 21.20.210 (Grades) requires that no street have a grade of more than 15%. Road grades were analyzed as part of the DEIR (see DEIR Mitigation Measures 5.5-3(a) and 5.5-3(b) for discussion of road grades). The main access road and emergency vehicle access road continue to propose grades in excess of 15%. Additional recommended revisions to the map require that road grades be adjusted to 15% or less, with one exception (see discussion below). DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.5-3(a) permits one 400 foot segment of the main access road with a slope of up to 18%. In this area, the road surface must be a scored concrete material. This segment of the road requires the City approval of a conditional exception from Section 21.20.210.. In this ease, a conditional exception is justified for the following reasons: a. The DEIR has analyzed the one segment of road that is proposed for the 18% grade. It has been concluded that this one segment would not impact emergency or fire vehicle access to the subdivision, provided that the road segment does not exceed 400 feet in length. In addition, the scored, concrete material surface is required for traction. b. Code compliance for this segment of the road would require excessive tree removal, which would result in significant visual impacts. c. The proposed access road would serve a limited number of single- do family residential lots, which would generate a low amount of traffic. The subdivision improvements include the development of an emergency vehicle access road (available alternative route) and water tank for fire flow storage. In addition, DEIR mitigation measure 5.7-4b (DEIR pages 5.7-6 and 5.7-7) requires the maintenance of Trapper’s Trail as a firebreak. Section 21.28.020 (Standards for Improvements) requires that all subdivision improvements comply with the "Standard Specifications of the City of Palo Alto". These standard specifications require a cul-de-sac improvement width of 30 feet (curb-to-curb), and a 50 foot wide right-of- way. The main access road is proposed with a curb-to-curb width of 24 feet (two 11 foot travel lanes, and one 2 foot shoulder), which would be contained within a 42 foot wide right-of-way. A conditional exception from the City’s street standard specifications is required. A conditional exception is justified for the following reasons: a. The main access road would serve a limited number of residential lots (eight), which would not result in heavy traffic use. b.Minimizing the width of the main access road would substantially reduce the amount of grading and tree removal. c. The reduced roadway width would be adequate to provide two-way travel for resident and emergency vehicles. d. Recommended additional revisions to the Tentative Map require separate, parking turnouts along the access road (per DEIR Mitigation Measure 5.5-3(d)). Additional Recommended Revisions to Design and Layout of Map The latest revisions to the Tentative Map respond to a number of issues which are outlined in this staff report. However, as discussed and recommended throughout this report, additional revisions to the design and layout of the map are recommended in order to accomplish the following: Full consistency with City Comprehensive Plan policies.~ Full compliance with standards of OS Dislrict. Compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Architectural Review (PAMC Chapter 16.48). Full implementation of the DEIR Mitigation Measures. and standards for The following revisions to the design, layout and grading of the map subdivision improvements are recommended. These recommended revisions are graphically depicted in pcsr-tm.lst Attachment 4 of this report, entitled, Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15, 1997: .Revisions to the. grading o_f the main access road. The first 400 lineal feet of the main access road shall be realigned to follow the existing, graded fire road. This realignment will eliminate 40 feet of fill in this area. Cut slope grades in ttKs area should not exceed 2:1. In addition, for this area, a geotechnical engineer shall identify appropriate and sensitive measures for slope stabilization, in order to minimize tree removal. Preliminary stabilization measures shall be incorporated into the redesign of this portion of the road. Detailed measures for landslide repair in this area shall be addressed at the time of Final Map and Improvement Plans. Redesign the grading for the first 1,800-2,000 lineal feet of the main access road (from road entrance to area beyond the "hair-pin" turn in road). Slope grades for the road shall be no steeper than 15%, with the exception of one, i~00 foot long segment, which can be designed with grades no steeper than 18% (use of scored concrete .material surface is required in this area for traction). The revised grading for this portion of the road shall minimize the amount of cut and fill by introducing retaining walls. These retaining walls shall be no greater than five feet in height, with terracing required if additional height is necessary. Redesign the grading of the main access road at the "hair-pin" turn so that cut and fill banks transition into natural grade. This area is recommended for tree planting; therefore, a 2:1 slope is recommended. Revisions to the alignment of the main access road along the hilltop. Along the hilltop, the last 900 lineal feet of the main access road shall be relocated to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. With this change, the on-site stormwater detention basin shall be deleted from the subdivision improvements and no off-site stabilization is required. Along this portion of and separated from the road, the revised map shall incorporate four 10 foot wide by 40 foot long on-street parking bays/turn-outs and a four foot wide pedestrian path. Revisions to the alignment and grades qf the emergent_ access road. The first 200 lineal feet of the emergency vehicle access road (commencing at the main access road cul-de-sac) shall be relocated to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. Grades along this road shall not exceed 15%. 4.Require measures for screening the proposed water tank. pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31~!~i!ii~)~ Page 33 Require that the on-site water tank be partially buried and painted an earthtone color, as required by mitigation measures presented in the project EIR. Reduce size of lot #8. Lot #8 shall be reduced in size to less than 10 acres. Define and record building envelopes _for each residential lot. Building envelopes shall be identified and defined for lots #1-8. The envelopes shall be located in the areas depicted in Attachment 4 and shall not exceed 20,000 square feet in size. Recommended conditions of approval re’quire that the design and layout of the map be revised and reflected on the Final Map and Improvement Plans. Public Participation Through the environmental review and application process, there has been a great amount of public participation on this project. The 45-day public review period on the DEIR resulted in City receipt of 33 letters of comment on the document, as well as public testimony from 20 persons at the Planning Commission hearing. Noticing for this project has included property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property, public/quasi-public agencies, special interest groups and neighboring homeowners associations. Written comments have been submitted on the latest revisions to the Tentative Map. Copies of correspondence received to dateare attached to this report. A number of the comments that have been raised are addressed in this report. ALTERNATIVES The project DEIR (Section 6) and FEIR!Response to Comments documents present and analyze a number of project alternatives. A summary of these alternatives are as follows: No-Development _(No Project) Alternative A "No Project" alternative is required to be assessed under the provisions of CEQA. 15 Lot Clustered Alternative The 15 lot clustered alternative was incorporated based on a request made during the Notice of Preparation process. This aliernative represents a project developed at the maximum permitted density (10 acres per lot/parcel) and a clustering of development on 10% of the land area. This alternative presents a main access road design which follows the alignment of the existing, graded fire road. pcsr-tm.lst 8 Lot Clustered Alternative The 8 lot Clustered alternative presents building envelopes that are more clustered and located below ridgelines and knolls. Under the alternative, the main access road is proposed to follow the alignment of the existing, graded fu’e road. This alternative incorporates the provisions of the OS District and Mitigation Measures presented in the DEIR. 8 Lot Dispersed Alternative - This alternative represents a plan similar to the proposed project (layout and main access road configuration) but locates proposed building envelopes below ridgelines and knolls. 8 Lot Clustered Variation Alternative In response to comments on the DEIR (public comment and recommendation of the Planning Commission), the FEIR/Response to Comments incorporates an additional "clustered" altemative. This alternative presents a plan of 8 single-family residential lots that are clustered at the southeast end of the site. The lots would be served by a main access road, which follows the aligmnent of the existing, graded fire access road (similar tothe road alignment designed for the 8 Lot Clustered Alternative and the 15 Lot Clustered Alternative). Building envelopes are proposed and designed to be located below hilltops and ridgelines. The altemative is based on the Santa Clara County Hillside Cluster Provisions (Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, Article 14, Section 6). Consistent with the County provisions, this alternative presents reduced lot sizes, which in total, encompass 10% of the site area (approximately 15 acres). The remaining 90% (136 acres) of the land would be placed in permanent, common open space. Following the "No Project" alternative, the 8 Lot Clustered, and the 8 Lot Cluster Variation Alternatives equally represent the environmentally superior alternative. While the 8 Lot Cluster Variation Alternative would reduce the visual impact of the development from adjacent Portola Valley properties, biotic impacts Would be increased, due to additional tree removal. The recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (as presented and recommended in the Discussion section of this report) would be most similar to the 8 Lot Clustered Alternative. Therefore, the recommended design revisions to the map would reflect an environmentally superior design. FISCAL IMPACT The project involves a subdivision of land for construction of eight, single-family residences. These dwelling units would generate property taxes. The residential dwelling units would pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31 ~R~!i~i~!~ Page 3 5 also generate school impact fees, as required by Palo Alto Unified School District. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT As discussed above, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and made available for review during a 45,day public review period. A copy of the DEIR has been distributed to the Planning Commission for information. The FEIR/Response to Comments document has been completed. The Commission does not review or present recommendations on the FEIR/Response to Comments. However, this document has been provided to the Planning Commission for information and assistance in the decision process for the subdivision improvements. The FEIR concludes that the project will result in four unavoidable impacts, for which there is no mitigation. These impacts include cumulative tree loss (Impact 5.6-12), cumulative loss of nesting or roosting habitat (Impact 5.6-13), cumulative loss of non-native grassland (Impact 5.6-14) and short-term visual impacts (Impact 5.8-9). Approval of the project will require that the City Council adopt "Findings of Overriding Consideration". The City Council will be required to balance the benefits of the project against these impacts. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Following Planning Commission action, the City Council will review the Final EIR (FEIR/Response to Comments, DEIK, & Mitigation Monitoring Program), as well as the Tentative Map and accompanying requests for conditional exceptions. This review is tentatively scheduled for December 15, 1997. Following approval of the Tentative Map, a Final Map is required for recordation with the County of Santa Clara. The Final Map includes the Subdivision Improvement Plans, as well as necessary bonding and subdivision agreements. Some components of the Subdivision Improvement Plans (fmal road design, retaining wall details, tree replanting program and final design and color of water tank) will require fmal review by the Architectural Review Board prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for recordation. Permits and/or approvals will or maybe required by the following agencies: 1.County of Santa Clara Department of Health Services (individual septic systems) 2.Santa Clara Valley Water District (all construction work within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek) 3.Cal EPA- Regional Water Quality Control Board 4.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5.California Department of Fish and Game pcsr-tm.lst ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment 1:Location Map Attachment I A:Original/Initial Tentative Map Attachment 1B:Proposed (Revised) Tentative Map Attachment 2:Draft Findings for Tentative Map and Conditional Exceptions Attachment 2A:Draft Findings for Architectural Review of Proposed Subdivision Improvements Attachment 3:Draft conditions of approval Attachment 4:Map/graphics presenting recommended revisions to the Tentative Map consistent with recommended conditions of approval Attachment 5A:Review of Revised Tentative Map for consistency with the City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria Attachment 5B:Subdivision improvement review for Compliance with the Town of Portola Valley Design Guidelines Attachment 6:Letter from Kenneth R. Schreiber, City of Palo Alto to John Arrillaga, property owner, outlining BeloW Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement; June 2, 1997. Attachment7:Table comparing the proposed subdivision with neighboring developments (existing and approved). Attachment 8:Arbofist Report/Tree Inventory Attachment 9:Letter from United Soil Engineering, Inc. To John Arfillaga regarding alternative slope stabilization measures; October 13, 1997 Correspondence/Written Comments DEIR and FEIR/Response to Comments [Commission only] Tentative Map, accompanying plans and draft CC & Rs [Commission only] Full-size prints of Attachment 4 (Additional Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map) [Commission only] COURTESY COPIES: John Arrillaga, Perry and Arfillaga, 2650 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 101 Santa Clara, CA 95054-1291 Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas and Company, Inc., 90 Archer Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Bob Berman, Nichols-Berman, 142 Minna Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 George Mader, Planning Department, Town of Portola Valley, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services, 660 South Fairoaks Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA. West Bay Sanitary District, 500 Laurel Street, Menlo Park; CA 94025-3486 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Atm: Richard Andersen pcsr-tm.lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 Page 37 Camas Hubenthal, The Committee for Green Foothills, Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 East Bayshore Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition, 1024 Emerson, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Ted Vian, President, Portola Valley Ranch Homeowners Association, #2 Sandhill, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Elaine Kay, Portola Ranch Association, #1 Indian Crossing, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Diana Fischer, 10 Valley Oak Street, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Linda Elkind, ! 4 Hawk View, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Nancy Strauss, 635 Los Trancos Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Terilyn Langsev-Burt, #1 Wintercreek, Portola Valley, CA 94028 John Baca, P.O. Box-8527, Palo Alto, CA 94309-8527 Ellen Christensen, 4217 Los Palos Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ¥irginiaBac0n,--205 G0id~~8 Prepared by:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Project Planner:Paul Jensen, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval:Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment pcsr-tm,lst 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31 ~~~~ Page 38 ATTACHMENT 5A Review of Revised Tentative Map for Consistency with City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria (City File#s 94-SUB-5 and 94-EIA-31) o o Statement 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public park lands. It should be cited so that it is hidden from view as much as possible. Response: The Tentative Map has been revised to relocate building envelopes for lots #1, 2, 5 and 6, so that they are located off ofridgetops/knolls. However, the project would still be highly visible. Staff recommends additional revisions to the design and layout of the map, which would further reduce project visibility. The additional recommended revisions are outlined in the Discussion section of this staff report. Statement 2. Development should be concentrated, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it. This is consistent with the "cluster principle" which makes development less conspicuous. Response." The revised Tentative Map significantly reduces lot sizes and introduces one large, private open space/common area parcel (54% of the site). In addition, building envelopes have been relocated so that they are more closely grouped. However, clustering can be further enhanced by relocating the main access road along the property hilltop, to align with the existing, graded fire road. Recommended additional revisions to the layout of the map (as outlined in the Discussion section of this report) and application of recommended conditions of approval would establish full consistency with this statement. Statement 3. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. Response: Compliance with this statement would be determined at the time of the Site and Design application process for each single-family lot. However, procedures recommended in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and implementation of recommended conditions of approval (incorporated into Subdivision CC&Rs and description of requirements in the deed of each lot) would ensure compliance. Statement 4. Where grading is needed to enable the development to blend into the natural topography, it should, nevertheless, be minimized to prevent erosion. Response: The roadway grading that is proposed for the revised Tentative Map, 5A-1 would not fully comply with this statement. The roadway grades require steep cut and fill banks (particularly along the incline slopes) and excessive grading/fill within the meadow (artificial fill) area along the properly hilltop. Additional revisions to the layout of the map, as recommended (outlined in the Discussion section of this report) would reduce grading. These recommended revisions would incorporate retaining walls along the roadway (as recommended in the DEIR) to reduce cut and fill banl:s and reduce tree removal. In addition, the recommended revisions support realignment of the main access road to avoid the meadow area along the hilltop. The recommended revisions would also reduce the length of private driveways as building envelopes areas would be clustered closer to the main access road. Statement 5. Large, flat expanses of impervious surface should be avoided to reduce the need for cut and fill .and to reduce potential run-off. Resport~e: Impervious surface coverage must comply with the 3.5% limit established by the OS District. The project proposes an impervious surface coverage that is slightly above the 3.5% limit. Recommended conditions of approval require maintenance of a 3.5% impervious surface limit and a specific allowance coverage for each lot. Statement 6. Buildings should use natural materials and ear&tone or subdue colors. Response: Compliance with this statement would be determined at the time of the Site and Design Permit application process for each single-family lot. Conditions of approval require that the Subdivision CC & Rs include provisions for required Site and Design Review and use of earthtones and natural building materials. The water tank must comply with this statement as a subdivision improvement. Recommended conditions of approval require that an earthtone color be selected for the tank, with f’mal review and approval by the ARB. Statement 7. Landscaping should be native species which require little or no irrigation (except immediately adjacent to ~tructures as a fire prevention technique). Response: In part, compliance with this statement would be determined at the time of the Site and Design Permit application process for each single-family lot. However, procedures recommended in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and implementation of recommended Conditions of approval (incorporated in Subdivision CC&Rs and description of requirements in the deed of each lot) would ensure compliance. With regard to the proposed subdivision improvements, recommended conditions of approval require that the Final Map Improvement Plans include a tree replanting program. This program is recommended for 5A-2 o mitigation of tree loss from grading. The replanting program requires use of native plant species (outlined in Discussion section of this report).. Statement 8. Lighting should be low intensity and shielded from view from surrounding public points (roads and parks). Response: In part, compliance with this statement would be determined at the time of the Site and Design Permit application process for each single-family lot. However, procedures recommended in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and implementation of recommended conditions of approval (incorporated in Subdivision CC&Rs and description of requirements in the deed of each lot) would ensure compliance. No street lighting is proposed along the main access road. However, if street lighting is required for safety and security, recommended conditions of approval require use of low-intensity lighting fixtures, which would be shielded to focus downward. In addition, it is recommended that street lighting be placed only where required for security and safety. Statement 9. Access roads should be of a rural rather than an urban character (standard curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). Response: The proposed main access road is designed to be consistent with this statement. 10.Statement 10. Ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. Response: As discussed above, the proposed subdivision would slightly exceed the 3.5% impervious surface coverage limits of the OS DistriCt. Recommended conditions of approval require subdivision compliance with these limits and establishment of a coverage allowance for each lot. oscritra.lst 5A-3 ATTACHMENT 5B Review of Revised Tentative Map for ,Consistency with Pertinent Portola Valley Design Guidelines- (94-SUB-5 and 94-EIA-31) Site Design Grading." a.Design structures to integrate with the natural topography of the site. b.Use contour grading to blend into land forms rather than severe cutting, filling, padding or grading. c.Design retaining walls as terraced or broken elements, not large, single retaining walls. c. Control grading and site preparation to reduce erosion and soil exposure and minimize impacts on natural drainage systems. d.R, evegetate cut and fills and other earth modifications with appropriate native plant materials. Response: The additional recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (outlined in the Discussion section of this report) would establish full consistency with these guidelines. These additional revisions include modifications to grading to minimize cut and fills, elimination of the proposed stormwater detention basin and introduction of retaining walls for tree preservation and protection. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures, as required in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan, require protection of natural drainage channels and employing measures for erosion and sediment control. Integrating the design of the structures into the natural topography would be required at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot, as required for consistency with Statemem 3 of the City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria. Vegetation Preservation: a. Site structures, driveways and parking areas with respect to natural site conditions such as drainage systems and vegetation. b.Design structures around mature trees and integrate with existing vegetation. c. Remove only minimal vegetation necessary for grading and construction. d. Protect existing trees and vegetation during site preparation and construction. Response: The additional recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (outlined in the Discussion section of this report) would establish full consistency with these guidelines. These additional revisions include the use of retaining walls, realignment of access roads and elimination of the on-site 5B-1 stormwater detention basin. The recommended relocation of the main access road would result in the relocation of building envelope areas and septic leachfields. Recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map include building envelope locations that were selected to reduce and/or eliminate vegetation removal and reduce impacts to natural drainage systems. View Preservation: a.Site structures to b. C. d. e~ minimize adverse visual impacts when viewed from off- site. Maximize open space preservation. Protect view corridors on the site to maintain views of prominent scenic features. Prevent the obstruction of views Of adjacent property owners by appropriately designing new structures or additions to existing structures. ~ Consider the future height of trees and shrubs so that yours and your neighbors views on and off site will not become obstructed. Re.wonse: Compliance with these guidelines would be, in part, determined at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot. However, recommended revisions to the map and implementation of the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan would Provide compliance with these guidelines. Firstly, the water tank has been located in an area that is heavily wooded. Recommended conditions require partial burial of the water tank and the selection of an appropriate earthtone color. Secondly, with the requirement for a specifically defined building envelope that is recorded for each lot, the location of homes and structures would be localized and confined; recommended building envelope locations were selected to provide tighter clustering of development and minimize visibility of - improvements from off-site. Thirdly, the project proposes permanent open space, which is compatible with the amount and character of open space that has been provided by other similar projects in the area. Lastly, the recommended tree replanting program would require use of native species, providing a growth height that is similar to the natural vegetation on the site; this growth would not obstruct views. Ridgelines/Hilltops : a.Whenever possible, avoid siting structures on ridgelines and hilltops. b.Minimize removal of tree masses so as to not disrupt the natural silhouette. c.Minimize off-site visual impacts through use of natural colors and materials which blend with the natural environment. d.Keep rooflines of structures below the height of the existing tree canopy. e.Any construction on ridgelines should be integrated into the natural context. f.Structures should be stepped with the hillside and slopes of roofs should 5B-2 mirror slopes of the terrain. Response: Compliance with these guidelines would be, in part, determined at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot. Recommended conditions of approval for the Tentative Map would require that specific design provisions for lots be recorded with the Subdivision CC & Rs and in the deed for each lot. The latest revisions to the design and layout of the map have resulted in the relocation of building envelopes f-:’,om prominent ridgetops. Furthermore, recommended revisions to the map require additional adjustments in the relocation of building envelopes and that the envelopes be recorded with the Final Map. As noted above, the water tank is located in an area that is heavily wooded. Recommendations for the tank are for partial burial and the selection of an appropriate earthtone color, ~ which would be consistent with these guidelines. Architectural Design Scale/Context: a. Site and design structure with respect to the natural environment and the surrounding residential area. b.Design structures in proportion to the size and configuration of the lots on which they are placed. c.Structures should be sited and designed to be unobtrusive and subordinate to the landscape. d.In relating structures ~o the surrounding environment, pay particular attention to shapes, colors and textures. e. Avoid architectural features which increase visual prominence. Mass/Bulk: a. On downhill slopes, avoid tall facades by stepping structures with the natural terrain. b.On downhill slopes, avoid cantilevered structures with tall supports and excessive roof overhangs. c. Reduce effective visible mass with the use of horizontal elements. d. Reduce the impacts of expansive facades by incorporating varied rooflines, offset facades and elements to produce shadow patterns. Response: Compliance with these guidelines would be, in part, determined at the time of Site and Design Review for each lot. However, recommended conditions of approval require that the measures and procedures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan be referenced on the Final Map, in the Subdivision CC & Rs and in the deed for each lot. Acknowledgment of this program/plan in these documents would ensure that future property owners are aware of its requirements. Requirements in this program/plan include provisions for screening of structures and restrictions on exterior.building materials and colors. In addition, recommended refisions to the design and layout of the map respond to these 5B-3 guidelines. The recommended map revisions would provide more suitable sites for development. The recommended building envelopes would ensure development is confined to a specific area and that future structures are in proportion with the size and configuration of the residential lots. Accesso~. Structures: a. Integrate accesso~’y structures and additions with existing buildings by using similar forms, colors and materials. b.Integrate accessory structures with the natural terrain and vegetation of the site. Response: While the design of potential accessory structures would be reviewed at the time of the Site and Design Review process for each lot, the proposed subdivision, as modified by conditions of approval, would address these guidelines. Tentative Map approval requires that specific building envelopes be defined for each lot. The envelopes are recommended for containment of all homes and ancillary uses and accessory structures. By confming the accessory structures to the building envelope area, integrating the design of these structures with the main dwelling and the surroundings is easier to achieve. Entr~:wa~,s : a.Design entryways to blend with the natural environment. b.Reduce visibility and obtrusiveness of entryways by setting gates, pillars, etc. back from roadway. c.Use indirect lighting at entryways to reduce off-site impacts. d. Strut .tin’e, including light fixtures or other appurtenances, shall not exceed a height of four feet within front setbacks. Response: The entryway to the subdivision would commence at the existing, graded fire road access to the hilltop. Additional recommended revisions to the design and layout of the map (as outlined in the Discussion section of this report) would reduce tree removal. Maintenance of tree cover would assist in shielding street light/entry light features..No formal entry features are proposed to define the subdiVision. As presented on the Tentative Map, the entry would blend with the natural environment. Landscape Design ~ Planting Concepts: a. Plant in random groupings to reflect the vegetation in adjacent properties and open space. Avoid linear plantings. b. Create a simple and natural design which lends with the site and area rather than an elaborate and formal landscape solution. c. Use a’ landscape plan to address the conditions of the site such as 5B-4 controlling erosion, providing privacy, creating shade and softening the appearance of structures. d.Planting in trail easements or conservation easements is prohibited. e.Avoid plantings that would restrict sight distance, require unusual maintenance or interfere with already established indigenous planting in areas adjacent to street rights-of-way and trail easements. Plant Materials: a. Use native plants, except for privately viewed areas on .the site. Carefully select native plants for areas along property boundaries or in corridors viewed from off-site.. b.Indigenous plants require less irrigation and maintenance. c.Do not replace existing plant materials with incompatible plant materials which would alter the character of the landscape. d.Use plants which are appropriate for"sub-environments" such as open space grasslands or oak forests) which exist within the Town. Response: Recommended conditions of approval require that a tree replanting plan be prepared with the Final Map and Improvement Plans. New tree planting of native species is required to mitigate tree loss from construction of subdivision improvements. No plantings are proposed to block trails or interfere with sight distance. Planting clearance for these areas (for firebreak purposes and access) would be the responsibility of the homeowners associations. Requirements for planting and screening on a lot-by-lot basis.are presented in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Plan, which is to be referenced on the Final Map, in the Subdivision CC & Rs and in the deed for each lot. This reference will ensure that future property owners are aware of the landscaping and screening requirements that are to be imposed at the time of Site and Design Review. In addition, recommendations require that ornamental landscaping be confmed to the required building envelope for each lot. pvgdlns2.1st 5B-5 June 2, 199:7 City of alo Alto Department ofPlanning and Comnutnity Environment ATTACHMENT 6 PlarmhagDi~ion Mr. John Arrillaga 2650 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 101 Santa Clara, California 95054-1291 SUBJECT:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 8 lot Los Trancos Road Subdivision Dear ~ "o ¯ Thank you for meeting with staff on May 12, 1997, to discuss your proposed subdivision, including the Below Market Rate (BMR) componen(. As we discussed,-- you have proposed an in-lieu fee agreement in satisfaction of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) are in agreement that in-lieu fees ire appropriate rather than the provision of a lot within the subdivision. This letter describes the BMR Agreement for housing mitigation in-lieu fees. 1. The total housing mitigation fee will be collected in two stages based on: a) the appraised value of the vacant lots, and b) the estimated value of the improvements to be constructed. The housing mitigation fee on the vacant lots shall be equal to 4.5 % (four and one- hail percent) of the sum of the appraised value of each of the 8 lots as determined in item 3, below. The total appraised value shall be determined based on the fair marl<et value of each lot, as a fully improved and ready to build residential lot, as determined by an independent appraiser selected by the City. The City shall be given at least 60 days notice prior to the date the appraisal information is required. The cost of the appraisal will be paid by the applicant. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O.Box 10250 P,,do Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415. 329.2240 Fax Mr. John Arrillaga June 2, 1997 Page 2 o The housing mitigation fee on all eight vacant lots must be paid to the City prior to City Council approval of the final subdivision map. A.further mitigation fee based on the estimated value o~’ the proposed improvements shall be paid at the time of issuance of the first building permit for each lot. This.. fee shall be equal to 4.5% (four and one-half percent) of the value of the improvements as determined using the most recent International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Building Standards, ’.’Building Valuation Data" in effect as of the date of the building permit application. The calculation shall use the "good" cost per square foot figure and the San Francisco area regional modifier (currently 1.13) applied to the greater of 1,750 square feet or the actual .tgtal square footage of improvements .shown on the plans approved by the City for building permit. Thereafter, any addition of greater than 1,500 square feet shall be subject to the fee. The total square footage of improvements shall include basement space unless the basements are semi-finished 6r unfinished,-in which case the lower basement rates specified in the ICBO data shall be used, Square footage in garages shall be calculated using the ICBO rate for \vood frame garages. The mitigation fee described under item 5 above shall be increased by an additional amount equal to 40% (forty percent) of the ICBO valuation, in order to account for estimated soft costs, fixtures, finishing details, appliances and floor coverings, etc. that are not included in the "Building Valuation Data." The purpose of this is to utilize an estimated value of the improvements comparable to actual developers costs for a completed home. For example, using the current, April 1997, ICBO Building’Valuation Data (copy. attached), the in-lieu fee on each residence, if wood frame construction, would be calculated using an estimated value of construction as follows: $81.50-x 1.13 = $92.095 per square foot + $36.838 ($92.095 x 40%) = $128.933 per square foot The terms of this letter of agreement shall .be incorporated into the-conditions of the Tentative Map and the Subdivision Agreement. The Subdivision Agreement must be completed and signed prior to the final map being.considered by the City Council. S:\PLAN\PLANDIV\SHARE\LTBMR~RR 1Vfr. Jol~,n Arriltaga 3une 2, 1997 Page 3 Thank you for your eoopera~o~ durra., the planning process on th!s projed. If you agree with this revised proposal, please sign this letter indizatin~ that w,e have reached agreement regarding the BMP,. component for your project, Sincerely, KENNETH R. SCt.IREIBER Director of Planning and Community En.’¢irotuT:en t Att:achment: " Building ’Valuation Data, April 1997 Sam Zu!lo, Mark Thomas arid Company " Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation D.~bra C~uble, Assistant Cky Alto?nay ~a GJll~land, Assistant Pla~ag,Offizial Paul Jensen, Contract Plaaner agree io provi.de a Below Market Rate component to the 8 lot sulxlivision o~ Traneos :Road as de-~cribed in this letter dated June 2, 1997. 1, APARTMENT HOUSES: TypL, I or II F.R." ..............$78.30 IGoocl~ $96.20 V--Ma.~onr. y Type II11 ..................64.00 (Good) S78.20 T}pe V--\-vood Frame .....56.20 (Good) S72.20 T)p,.’ I--Basement Garage 33,00 2. AUDITORIUMS: T)pe l o~ II ER .................92.30 Typu I1--1-Hour .............. Type II--N ......................63.30 Type I11--1-Hou~ .............70.30 Type IlI--N .....................66.70 T)pe V--1 .Hou~ ..............67.20 T)pe V--N ......................62.70 3. BANKS: Tyt)u I o~ II ER." ..............~ 30.30 T)pe I1--1-~our ..............96.00 Type II--N ......................93.00 7. (Good) $8S.40 %.pc V--Wood Frame...Sg.]O IGood~ SOl.S0 Semi-[ini~hed ...........12.70 IGaod) $20.50 Un~ni~hed .................12.80 (Good) $15.60 8. ~IRE STATIONS: ~ype I o~ 11 ~,R ...............] 00.~0 ype 11--I .Hou~ ............66.~0 ~,pe II--N ....................62.50 ype 111--1-Hou~ ...........72.60 yp~ III--N .................~.69.50 ~pe V--I .Hou~..: .........68.00 ~ype V--N ....................64.70 9. HOMES ~OR ~HE ~LD~RLY: "" Type I o~ II [.R..: ............91.50"¯Type 11--1.Hou~ ............~4.~0 ~ype II--N ....................~ 1.00 Occupancy and T~pe Fun!, A~ e~age 13, JAILS: ~ype I o~ II F.R ...............~ 140.~0 ~pe III~I -Hou~ ...........128.00 Type V~I -Hour ............96.00 14. LIBRARIES: Tipe I or II F.R ...............102.50 ~ype I1--1-Hou~ ............75.00 T~pe II--N ..................... ~;pe II1--1-Hou~ ...........79.20 ~)pe III--N .................... T)pe V--1 .Hou~ ............74.50 ~ype V--N ....................71.30 1~. MEDICAL OFFICES: [ype 1 or II F.R." ............ D’pe I1--1 -Hou~ ............81.20 [ype II--N .....................77.20 [ype I~1--I-Hour ...........85.40 type III--N ....................82.00 [ype %’--I-Hour., ..........79A0 D’pe V--N 7~,6Q Carl per Sq,areOccupancy and Typ~Fonl, A, era~e 20. RESTAURANTS: Type III--I .Hour ...........$35.80T;’pe III--N ....................90,00 T)pe V--i-Hou~ .....: ......78.G0 Type V--N ....................75.50 21. SCHOOLS: type I or II F.R ...............98,00IFype II--I-Hour ............66.80 rype III--I -Hour ...........7 l.S0 [ype III--N ....................68,80 type V--l-Hour ............67.00rype V--N ....................64,00 22. SERVICE STATIONS: Type 11--1’4 .....................59.20 Type IIl--I-Hou{ ...........’ 6~ .70 Type V--!-Hour ............5~.60 Canopies .......................24.70 23. STORES: ype I’or II F.R.’ ............72.60 Type III--N .....................102.20 Type V--1-Hour ..............96.00 Type V--N ......................92.00 4. BO\VLING AllEYS: [).pe I1--1-Hour ..............45.00 lyl)e II--N ......................42.00 [ype III-- I .Hou~ .............48.B0 Type IH--N .....................45.80 Type V-- ! .Hour ..............33.00 S. CHURCHES: 1"ype I or I1 F,R .................67.40 Type II--I .Hour ..............65.50 Type II--N ......................62.30 Type lll--1.Hour .............71 30 Type III--N .....................68.20 "Iype V--I-Hour ..............66.70 Type V--N ......................62.70 6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS: Type I or II F.R." ..............122.50’ Type 11--l-Hour ..........:...85.00 Type Ill--l-Hour .............B7.20 Type V--I .Hour ..............82.20 Type lll--I .Hour ...........77.20 Type III--N ...................74.20 "~ Type V--I .Huur ............74.80 Type \’-- I’~ ....................72.00 10, IiOSPITALS: Type I or II F.R.’ ............143.80 Type I11--1 -Hour ...........1 19.00 Type V--1 .Hou{ ............113.50 11. HOTELS AND MOTELS: TType I or II F.R." ............89.00 ype III--I -Hour ...........77.00 Type III--N ....................73.50 Type V--I -Hour ............67.00 Type V--N ....................6S.70 12. hNDUSTRIAI PLANTS: TTy[)e I Or II F.R ...............50.20 ype I1--1 ,Hour ............3S.00 Type II--N .....................32.00~yt)e II1--1-Hour ............38.50 ~ )e III--N ....................36.20 li t-up ...........................26.30 Type V--I-Hou~ ............36.20 Type V--N ....................33.20 16. OFFICES":" type I or II F.R." ........~,..9.1.00 D’pe I1~1-Hour ............63.00r>p’e ~I--N .....................60.00 [\’pe lll--l-Hour .......,~,,68.00ripe III--N"~ ....................65.00 lype V--I -Hour ............63.70 l’)pe V--N ....................60.00 17. PRIVATE GARAGES: Wood Frame .................21.50 Masonry ........................24,20 Open Carports ..............14,60 18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS: ’ype I or II [R." ............108,6~ ype II--~-Hour ............88,00 "}pe II--N .....................84.20, ")pc 111--I -Hour ...........9 ! o40 "ype III--N ....................88.20 ")’pe V--I .Hour ............83.70 "ype V--N ....................80.60 19. PUBLIC GARAGES: Type I or II F,R." ............ 43.00 Type I or II Open Parking’ 32.40 Tipe II--N .....................~ 25.30 Type IIl--i.Hour ........L.32.60 Type Ilion ....................29.00 Type V~I-Hour ............29.70 ype 11--l-Hour ............" 44.50’ype II--N .....................43.30~’pe Ill--i-Hour ...........54.00"ype III,-TN ....................50.70’ype V--I-Hour ............45.50 ype V--N. ....................42.00 24. THEATERS: TType I or II F.R ...............96.70 ype II1--1 .Hour ...........70.40 Type III--N ....................67.00 Type V--1-Hour ............66.30 Type V--N ....................62.70 2S. \VAREHOUSES’": .~ype I o~ II F.R ...............43.50 ype II or V--I- Hour ... 25.80 Type II or V--N .............24.30Type II1~!-Hour ...........29.30Type Ilion ....................28.00 EQUIPMENT AIR CONDITIONING: Commercial ..............3.~0 Re~idemial ................3.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ....1.80 Add 03 percenl Io lolal cosl l’ot each story over three. ¯"’Deducl 20 percenl i’or shell-only buildings.""D,,’duc111 percent for mini.warehouses. REGIONAl MODIFIERS "~he [ollo;,..in~ modifiers are recommended for use in con]uncllon with lhe building valuation dala. Addillonally, certain local condillons may require furlher mod,ficafion~, To u~e lhese modifiers, merely muhiply lhe lisled co~l pe~ square ~ool by lhe appmprlale re~iun~l moddie~. For example Io ad usl lhe co~t o~ a ~)l~e III One-hou~ holel buddm~ of ove~e con~l~u¢lion (o~ l~e lov.~ a~ea, ~elecl R~onal Modifie~ 0,B0 and unll co~l [rum v~,uallon dala, ~71.00: 0.B0 x 77.00 ~ S61.60 (ad~u~led cosl per ~quare ~ooI) Easlern U.S.Modifier Co,mecllCul .........................0.95 Dcla:vare .............................0.84 Dis!dct of Columbla ............0.B7 Flodda .....: ...........................0.74 Georgia ................................0.68 Maine .........................: ........0.8 I Maryland .............................0.79 h~,a~.sachu~el(s ......................0.94 N ,..;.: Ha~npshife ...................0.82 Ne,.; Jersey ...........................0.91 New ’YO~ I’;vw York Oly .................1.16 Olher ...............................0.B7 Nurlh Ca~olino.~ ...................0.70 Easlem U.S. (toni.)Modifier I’ennsylvania f’hiL~delphia ....................0.96 Od~er ...............................0.83 Rhode I~land ........................0.94 Suulh Carulina ......................0.70 Verm~nl ...............................0.80 ~nla ................................0.73 West V r, nia 0.82 Cenlral U,S. Alabama ..............................0,72 Arkansas ..............................0.70IllinolS ..................................0.87I.,~d~ana ................................. 0.82 lo’,,,’a ...................................0.80 Cenlrol U.S. (conl.)Modifier Kansas, .................................0.74 l<enlu~:ky..............................0.77 Louisiana .............................0.78 /’Aichi~an .............................0.84 ,". ~inn,asol :, ............................0.B6 ,,I,ssu. ,ppi ...........................0.71 ,.b:.oun ...............................0.78 N~bra~ka .............................0.75 No:;h D~l~ola .......................0.80 Ohio ...................................0.80 O’,dahoma ............................0.71 South Dakota .......................0.78Tennessee ............................0.72 T,...\a s ....................................0.74 \V~scuniln ............................0.85 \Vc~,tcrn U.S.Modificr Ala.~ka ..................................1.30 A:izona................................0.82 California los Angeles .....................1.00 San Francisco ..................I.I 3 O:her ...............................0.94 Cola;ado ...............................0,81 Ha,...all .................................1.14 Idaho ...................................D.80 ,Montana ..............................0.79 Nevada ................................0.89 N e.,,: Mexico ........................0.76 O~c,~on ................................0.83 U(0n ...................................0.75 Wa~hinglon ..........................0.83 W)-omh~g .............................0.80 - $2 UUILDtNG STANDARDS?Ma:ch-Aprll 1997 ATTACHMENT 7 Comparison of Revised Tentative Map with other Existing and Approved Residential Developments in the area Project Proposed Project (revised) Lee Subdivision. Palo Alto Hewlett Subdivision, Pato Alto Portola Valley Ranch, Portola Valley Portola Glen, Ponola Valley Blue Oaks, Portola Valley # of lots/parcels Total Site Area 151.5 acres 5O 107 453 46 264 (densi~°- gross) 8 (1 unit/18.9 acres) 5 (1 uniVl0 aores) 10 (1 nnit/l 0 acres) 205 (1 unit/2.2 acres) 11 3O Parcel size range 4.91-11.6O acres 4.2-9.6 acres 4,1-6,2 acres 1.1-2.0 acres Average parcel size 8.25 acres 6.2 acres 0.7 acres 1.5 acres Clustering common open space parcel common open space separated from lots by road~vay; no clustering of lots’ common open space + land dedicated for public open space Housing units clustered in 33 groups separated by open space = peripheral open space clustered into groups of lots separated by opco space Open Space (% of total) ¯ 81.59 acres (54%) 19 acres common area (38%) 56 acres of common area + dedication of 11 acres (52%) 305 acres of private open space (67%) Additional private open space = 50 acres (lots) 29 acres (63%) in private open space with hiking trails 0.7-3.1 acres 2.0 acres clustered surrounded by common open space 192 acres (73%) in common open space + additional 52 acres in private open space (lots) prjctstb.lst MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & MUNICIPAL PLANNERS 90 ARCHER STREET, SAN JOSE, CA 95112 PHONE (408) 453-5373 ¯ FAX (408) 453-5390 SAM J. ZULLO RICHARD K. TANAKA PHILLIP R. SAVIO TIMOTHY R, FLEMING DAVID E. ROSS MICHAEL J, LOHMAN October 8, 1997 File 94045 Mr. Paul Jensen, AICP 55 Mitchell Blvd, Suite 16 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Lands of Arrillaga - Arbortst Report Dear Mr. Jensen: Enclosed is a copy of the Arborist Report by Robert Phillips. As we are not doing the building pad, tree identification at this time is probably not necessary to complete the identification in pad areas. Apparently Mr. Phillips was not able to locate the water tank site..I will locate the site for him so that-we can complete the report. We are in the process of reviewing the road alignment in areas of heavy tree removal to see if we can improve the situation. Sincerely, MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. Sam J. Zullo sjz:sh enclosure Copy: John Axrillaga Robert Phillips TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS SITE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARKS SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND INSPECTION HYDRQLOGY AND DRAtNAGE SPECIAL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT 10/5/97 RECEIVED OCT 0 7 Ig97 MARK THOMAS & CO., INC. Mr . ,Sam J. Zullo Mark Thomas & Co. gO Archer Street San Jose, Ca, 95112 Phone (408)453-5373 F&x (408)453-539o :/’" RKT PRS TRF DER MJL ACCTG SJ "-r~L~-. Re: Lands of :Ar’ri!laga - Tree Locations Dear Mr, Zullo : Please find enclosed the Tree list which was provided for me to evaluate, The type of Tree Is listed by Genus, Species and common name, The Tree condition rating that also was requested is tabulated by rating of one to {hree , The number one on the scale represents trees that maybe are completely dead or trees that have a low condition rating because of either their age, health or l~e surrounding cultural environment . The trees system can be eflected by a variehj of different influences . Trees that =re suppressed in the forest floor are deprived of available sunlight and are there by stunted in their overall growth. Tree~ that have had the soil grade raised or lowered at their base have had to struggle to survive because there root system has either been desiccated or suffocated . The majority of the "rraes that wher~ evaluated in .th!_s report ._were _g~.e._n_~._.n..urnber one r.a.ti.ng._which...means that t__he_y_ were poor to fair in their overall condition , Trees with a number two rating have matured and develop-e-d enough in overall growth to be given a fair to good rating In overall condition , Trees that have been rated between two and three are considered the highest in ~verall value , This is because of the combination of their tree species , individual =~ge, measurement in inohes of the tree trunk diameter at approximately four |eet six inches, from the present ground level and the overall favorable existing cultural ¢ondition’~ . Some trees were misidentified and some tzees were not looated at all on the map or in the field Please let me know if you have any further questions that may require additional information. Sincerely , Robert W, Phillips Tree Genus Species & Common Npm~ Identification List & Key. {1) Aesculus californica - Ca-lifornia Buckeye (2) Arbutus, menz, ieii, ~ Pacific Madrone (3)Heteromeles arbutifolia - Toyon (4)SeQuoia semD_e,rvirens - Redwood (5)Quercus a~rifolia - Coast Live.Oak (6) " Quercus kelloRgii - Black Oak (7) Quercus lobat,,a - Valley Oak (8)~mbellulari, a, cali~ornica - California Laurel The trees numbers are listed and identified according to the Page 1 of 8 94045-PORTOLA O;tPD\94045-PORTOLA\WQRD-~CEL-MISC\TREE.L-/ST DATE: 9/18/97 0 10+00 1 36+8,490 Center 2 backsit#1/hv-t 3 check#13/fnd,nSs 4 back~ite#12 5 ~’set-80d.nail 6 fnd-nSs#14 7 set-80d-spike 8 cl-fehce 9 cl-rence 10-cl-fe nce 11 d-fence 12 c~-fence 13 cl-fence 14 cl-fence 15 cl-fence 16 el-fence 17 live-oak 18 live-oak 19 backsite#13 20 set-80d-na=l 21 clump-live~k 22 IJVE-OAK 23 BAY LAUREL 24 UVE-OAK 25 . LIVE-OAK 26 BACKSlTE#3007 27 LIVE-OAK.CLUMP 28 UVE-OAK " 29 OAK 30 OAK 31 REDWOOD 32 LIVE-OAK 33 OAK 34 OA~ 35 OAK 36 MADRONE 37 OAK 38 OA~ 39 OAK 40 OAK 12" 26" 6-18" 20" 22" 22" 10" t6" 24" 12" 36" 4" 12" 18" 10" TREE-LIST Page 2 ~f 8 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4g 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 80 81 82 83 85 87 89 CHAfN-GATE-POST CHAIN-GATE.POST OAK.CLUMP 4-1’#" CL-EX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD CL-F-.X.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD OAKo ,K OAK "8=---I’-80D-NAIL "BACK$ITE~020 ,CHECK#3005 OAK 18" OAK OAK 2-18" OAK 18" OAK 10" GUY .GUY OAK 18" OAK 1-1 LAUREL-CLUMP 10" LAUREL-CLUMP 4-10" OAK 20 LAUREL 10" OAK 14" LAUREL 2-10" OAK .........14" OAK 2-12" OAK 10", OAK 12",.16" LAUREL 10" LAUREL 2-14",1-~" OAK 2-12" LAUREL 8" OAK 10" 8~"-80D..NAIL backsite#3052 LAUREL 2O" OAK 2-1 OAK 18" OAK 14" LAUREL 2"12",2-6" OAK 10" LAUREL OAK 1 TREE-LIST 90 OAK 91 LAUREL 92 LAUREL 93 OAK 94 OAK 95 OAK 96 OAK 97 OAK 9~OAK 99 ’MADRONE 100 OAK 101 8ET40dNAIL 102 SIET..80dNAIL 103 ..BACKBITE#3102 104 OAK 105 OAK 106 OAK 107 O,QK 108 GRND#END-TREE 109 FL-18"CMPIOUTFAL 110 FL.18"CMP@INLET 111 OAK 112.OAK 113,OAK 114 CL-EX.ROAD 115 CL-EX.ROAD 116 CL-EX.ROAD 117 GL-EX.ROAD 118 GL-EX.ROAD11 g LAUR~ZL 120 OA~ ...... 121 OAK 122 OAK - 123’8ET-.80D-NAIL 124 BACKSITE#3123 125 OAK 126 OAK 127 OAK 128 LAUREL 129 OAL 13O LAUREL 131 OAK 132 OAK 133 OAK 1 ~4 OAK 135 OAK-DEAD 136 LAUREL 137 LAUREL 138 OAK Page 3 ~f 8 TREE-LIST 1~g 140 I~I 144 .148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 157 158 159 160 161 162 ,163 164 165 166 167 188 169 170 17! 172 173 174 175 176 177 180 .183 184 186 187’ Page 4 of 8 OAK LAUREL LAUREL OAK OAK OAK FL-18"CMP CL-IEX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD CL-EX.ROAD SET-80D-NAIL BACK$1TE.#3153 OAK OAK MADRONEE OAK OAK OAK OAK FL-18"CMP(~INLET BACKSITE#3123 SEr-80dSPIKE ......... BACKSITE#3169 MADRONIE 10" OAK 2-4" OAK 4’ OAK OAK OAK..4" OAK 42" OAK 12" OAK 1-26",I-16’ OAK 3-I0" MADRONE OAK 1-24",1o16" OAK 16",12" MADRONE 2.4" MADRONE 6" OAK OAK TP, EE.LIST Page 5 of 8 188 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 2O5 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 .... 219 220 221 223. 224 225 226 227’ 228 22.9 230 231 232 233 234" :235 236 237 OAK OAK OAK B L.A, CK-OAK OAK SE.’I’-16DNAIL BACKSITE#3169 CHECK#3153 FL-18"CMP/OUTFAL FL-18"CMP@INLET’ OAK MADRONE MADRONE MADRONE LAUREL OAK LAUREL OAK OAK LAUREL VALLEY-OAK LAUREL BI,-AC:K-OAK. OAK LAUREL OAK LAUREL s~r-NSS back.~IBg laurel ............ OAK 6",6",,, {-~,OAK MADRONE 4"_~ ) .~. OAK 10" LAUREL LAUREL LAUREL OAK BACKSI~153 .S~0dN~L OAK OAK TREE-LIST 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250. 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 ."262 263 264 265 266 267 ....... 268 269 270 271 272 ....273 274 275 276 277 278 279, 280 282 2.83 285 286 P~e 6 of 8 OAK 8*_. OAK 10’ BACK$1TE#3169 LAUREL VALLEY-OAK 8ET-SDnail 8ET-SDnail wiley-oak valley-oak valley-oak valley-oak OAK LAUREL OAK TRF.E ¯ BAGKSITE#3243 ¯ 8ET-B0d-nail backsffe#324.4 . check-hv-71111 corrtroI-PT3254 ’c~ntrol-PT3244 ¯ BACKSITE#3244 .CHECK#11 .BACKSITE#I 1 MADRONE 2-6" MADRONE 4--4"- OAK 26" MADRONE 4" OAK 8",10~,12" OAK MADRONE ..............2-20"_ ....... OAJ~20" OAK OA~ OAK 3-10" OAK 6" ¯ BACKSITF.#I 11 BLDG.$1TELOT-1 ¯ BLDG.81TELOT-2 BACK8ITF~109 BLDG-SITE/LOT-6" OAK 10" MADRONE 10" MADRQNE 10’ OAK OAK OAK 12" OAK ’ 4’ OAK TREE-LIST 288 289 29O 291 292 ; 293 295 296 297 298 299 3OO 301 302 :303 3O4 3O5 306 307 .30B 309 310 311 .312 313 314 :315 316 317 31B 319 320 ,321 322 323 324 325 326 327 326 329 330 :331 332 333 334 335 Page 7 of B " OAK (..,OAK ’$;T-SPIKE BACKSITE#121 OAK OAK "BACK$1TF-..#109 ¯ ..CU ECK#122 BLDG.SrTE-LOT-5 ¯ OAK LA, UREL OAK , OAK LAUREL OAK OAK OAK MADRON.E. OAK M~DRONE OAK ,OAK ,OAK ¯ OAK ¯ OAK .° :OAK OAK :OAK ....... : .OAK ¯ OAK ~OAK OAK OAK ¯ . OAK ,OAK .OAK ~OAK ,OAK LAUREL LAUREL {.,OAK ’ ’ LAUREL WATERLTANK SITE BACKSITE#’101/=27 RE-SET#25 BACKSITE#26 2-12’ 14" 10" " 12’ 10" 84" 6" 4" 2-4" 2-12" 4" 2-14" 24" 2-14" 18" 16" TRF_E-LIST 33? 338 339 340 351 352 353 354 FND.G.G.#24ifl/ BACKSrTE#33355 R E -S E[#23/J/I SET-SPIKE APPOX.VV’rR.TANK OAK OAK OAK OAK OAK OAK OAK OAK BACK$1TE#3337 OAK OAK OAK OAK OAK .4.-18" 12" 2-10’ 4" 10" 2-10" 20" 4-21 ". 3-8" 12" 2-20’ 20" TREE-LIST Flte No. 401 8-51 October 1 3.1997 ATTACHMENT 9 Arrlllag= Foundation 2~60 Mission College Bird, Suite 101 =ant;~ Clara, CA 950~;4 Attention: Mr, John Ardlliu3a Proposed Residential SubdMslon 500 Los Tran¢os Woods Road Palo Alto, Californl~ ALTERNATE LANDSLIDE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Dear Mr. Arrillaga: We are pleased to transmit herewith our ~tltern~,te la~dsllda mitigation recommendal:lons for the subject proJe~, The ~ubJe~ project is the proposed- residential subdivision Ior.~ted at 500 Los Tr=n¢os Woods Road In P~lo Alto, California, As indic~ted tn the EIR report prepared by the offic~ of Paul A, J~nsen, landslides of various types are presertt on the =loges throughou~ the property (see Figure I Site Piar0, At the northeast corner of the site,, a landslide w~s mapped by our geologist. This landslide traversed the main access mz=dw-~y~ In addP, Jon, the EIR geologist indi=ted that the l~ndsiide may be apart of a largep ~nd older landslide. Mltlg=Ltton by grading of the la~dslide is not fea.~lble be~u~ of removing many trees and =hrub~. Therefore, we recommend two alternativl= wlt~ no addit;ona! g~ding to mitigate the poten~:ial I~nd$11de at. thi~ location. ’ 3476 Edward Avenue ¯ Santa Clar~ CsJlfomi,~ 95054 No. 4018-$1 ALTERNATIVES The onstrucrdon of a subsurface re~ainlng wall to the dept, hs of competent materml ~ indlcjated In our Soil and Foundation Investlg~tion Report RI~ No, 93-4018-$1, dated Ivlarch 30, 1993. In addition, a t~-b=tck system should be tmnstructed to provide additional SUpl~ort f~r the retaining wail. ’ The construction of a st!tch-ptn pier .~ystem with 3 feet spacing from center to ~enter, This pier sy~em should extend to the depths of competent material. The above-mentioned attern&tives should be p~opedy designed by a .strUctUral engineer utill~ing ~ubsurf~ce soil d~ta provided ~y the geotechnlcal engineer. In ~ddlUon, the cons~naction o~ the ml~ig~.tlon should be ~ro~r)y tns~ed ~nd obse~ed by ~ geotechnl~l engineer. ~ If you have any questions or require additional!information, please ~eel free to contact our office at your convenlen¢e. Very truly yours, UNITED SOIL ENGINEEP, ING, INC, Vien Vo, P,E. 4018.1m/Copies:2 to Arrlllaga Foundation 1 to M~rk Thomas and Coml~.ny~ Attn: Mr, Sam Zullo ’" ! United Soil Engineering, inc. SubJec~ Project Site Unll:~;i Soil Engineering, Irtc, 3476 Edward Avenue Santa C;lar~,, CA 9S054 (408) 988-2990 SITE PLAN Propose~ R.esidential!, ~Ibdivl~ion SO0 Lo~ Tranco~ Woods P~ad P.alo Ait~, Callfornl~ File No. 401 Drawn by: P,AJ, ’FIGURE .... October 1997 ATTACHMENT 10 AR.CHITECTUKAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING November 6, 1997 Los Trancos Road~ Lands of Arrillaga 94rSUB-5 94-EIA-31 97-AKB-190 The Architectural Review Board will specifically review the proposed subdivision improvements (access roads, Water tank and on-site storm water detention basin) per the provisions of PAMC Section 16.48.050(c) and Draft Environment Impact Report for a tentative map application to subdivide 151 acres into eight, single-family, residential lots and one private open space/common area parcel (81+ acres in size). Ms. Piha: Are there any staff comments? Mr. Jensen: Staff has a brief oral report for the benefit of the board and the public, as this is a somewhat unusual application to come before the board. The project proposes a subdivision of eight single-family residential lots on 151 acres located in the foothills. The property is within the Open Space District, and typically, the board would not be r6viewing subdivisions or subdivision improvements. However, there is a section or provision in your Architectural Review Board ordinance that does require you to review improvements for development in the Open Space District. As such, you are required to review the grading, the access roads and some of the other improvements that are associated with the subdivision. The Planning Commission and City Council will be reviewing the tentative map in its entirety at future meetings. The project has undergone a very lengthy environmental process, as you will find in your report packet. There was a Draft Environmental Impact Report and a Response to Comments document. In your staff report, there is an attachment, Chart 2B which summarizes those sections of the report that are pertinent to your review of this project today. As you have noted in the staffreport, there are some recommendations by staff for revisions to the design and layout of the project. The majority of these changes are consistent with the mitigation measures that are recommended in the EIK They also follow city policy for compliance with the Open Space District provisions. I would be glad to go through some of the recommended revisions, if you would like, in a few minutes. I will leave that up to your discretion. With us today is Jim Harrington from Public Works to answer questions, along with Nick Marinaro from the fire department, Dave Dockter, the city arborist, and Scott MacPherson of Nichols, Berman, the EIR consultant firm. I would like to close by saying that there were several letters submitted to you. There is one letter where a neighboring residential was unable to stay for the meeting, and she has requested that the Chair read the letter into the record. That is the letter from Tefilyma Langsev-Burt. ~ Ms. Piha: First, I think it would be helpful if you could expand upon your opening comments. AALostrancos.Page 1 Mr. Jensen: Certainly. I would first like to draw your attention to the maps in this area. Basically, you have a subdivision design that makes use of an existing graded fire road that manages tO give access to the ridge top portion of the property. Staffhas reviewed the grade plans and the recommendations in the EIR and also the provisions of the Open Space District, and has recommended primarily some changes to the access road-and a number of other improvements. First, in this particular area of the road where you enter the. subdivision, there is 40 feet of fill that is proposed under the current project grading plan. We found it to be unnecessary by just moving the road slightly inward from Los Trancos Road and also better following the alignment of the existing access road. As you continue up this road, there are some significant cut and fill slopes that are proposed on the grading plan. The EIR recommends the use of retaining walls, so we took a look at that and found that retaining walls were possible up and down this road, minimizing the amount Of cut and fill, and also minimizing the amount of tree removal, particularly the protected trees under the city’s ordinance. As you make this hairpin turn around the area of the site, this is open grassland. The cut banks that are proposed in this area are quite sharp, and they should probably be laid back a little more so that they are a little more natural to the terrain, which is what is recommended in this plan. As you reach the’top of the hill, the proposed subdivision would extend a. road through a large meadow area, and that would necessitate the construction of an on-site detention base in general in this area. That is shown on the tentative map. What was recommended in the EIR was to relocate this road to follow the alignment that you see on this drawing, which is basically the alignment of the existing fire road at the top of the hill. What that does is to eliminate the need for the on-site detention basin and also some off-site mitigation measures that would be required. It also allows for a tighter cluster of building envelopes which will be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The last two recommendations in the report include a realignment of the emergency access road that runs around the back side of the property to eliminate tree removal in that area, and also some recommendations for a water tank which is on Proposed Lot 9, an Open Space parcel, to partially bury the tank and use an earth tone color, which is required by the EIR. That basically summarizes what you see up here. You will notice that there are building envelopes identified in this drawing which are basically the building envelope locations for one of the alternatives.in the draft EIR, the 8-lot cluster alternative. The issue of building envelopes, !mpervious surface coverage and lotting pattern and size of lots will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, which is pretty much in their purview for the subdivision, not the Architectural Review Board’s purview. Are there any questions? Ms. Pih~t: Would you go over again what the issues are that the Planning Commission addresses rather than this board? Mr. Jensen: The Planning Commission and City Council will address the subdivision as a whole. That includes the lotting pattern, the appropriateness of the size of the Open Space parcel that is proposed, the concept of building envelopes for each of the lots; and the issue of impervious surface coverage for each of the lots. The Board’s review is pretty much limited to subdivision A:kLostrancos.Page 2 improvements, which include grading, the access roads, a proposal for an outside detention basin, which staffis recommending be eliminated, and the recommendations for the water tank. Ms.Piha: Thank you. Are there board member questions of staff?. Mr.Peterson: Am I correct that the location of the building sites are not in our purview? Mr.Jensen: That is correct. Mr.Peterson: And therefore, driveways, etc.? Mr.Jensen: Right. Driveways are offofthe main access road. Mr.Peterson: What about the emergency road? Mr. Jensen: The emergency vehicle access road is a part of your review. So when I reference access roads, it does include that road. Mr. Peterson: And consideration of the alternative that staffhas proposed about the realignment of main and emergency access roads? Mr. Jensen: Yes. Mr. Alfonso: The amount of impervious area isnot part of our purview? Is that just building site area? (Yes) And driveways into the units? (Yes) Mr. Jensen: The ordinance is very specific as to impervious surface coverage per lot. However, the provisions of the ordinance, when you look at a subdivision, encourage clustering by downsizing lots of less than ten acres so that you can apply the impervious surface coverage limits on the property as a whole. The recommendations that will be made to the Planning Commission and to the City Council will identify an allowance of impervious surface coverage where you discount the coverage that is required for the roadways and for some of these other improvements. The remainder would be allotted on a lot-by-lot basis. Those are recommendations that are considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, not this board. They do apply to the specific lots. We do have the project engineer here today to explain the grading issues. Mr. Alfonso: As for the water tank location, do we look at that, as well? I read they are proposing a 220,000-gallon tank. Is that size of tank something that is required? Mr. Jensen: The water supply study that was prepared for the EIR concluded that in order to meet fire flow demands in the foothills, in addition to domestic water supplies, a maximum size water tank of 200,000 gallons would be required. Nick Marinaro is here from the fire department. There is some question that the size of that tank may be excessive. What we are doing is that we are looking at a worst case condition, which is 200,000 gallons. It could be A:kLostrancos.Page 3 considerably smaller than that, based on the final water supply requirements that will be prepared for the final subdivision map. Mr. Alfonso: There might be some visual impact regarding the pumping station and the size and equipment that goes along with that, is that correct? Mr. Jensen: Preliminarily, yes, there might be some. Mr. Lippert: I have a couple of questions with regard to what we are reviewing here. Will we be reviewing the size or character of these buildings in the future? Mr. Jensen: No, you will not. The Open Space District requires that each lot be subject to a site and design permit. The site and design permits in the Palo Alto ordinance are reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, not by the Architectural Review Board. ARB member: And do you know if the subdivision is going to be developed all at once, or individually, parcel by parcel? Mr. Jensen: I would have to defer to the project engineer on that one. What we have been told since the beginning is that the property owner intends to subdivide the property and retain it for his.family, but that does not guarantee that the lots will not be sold off. Once the map is recorded, legally, they can be sold offto anyone. How that affects whether the lots are sold offas a group and developed as one, I cannot answer right now. The project engineer may be able to i-espond to that. Ms. Grote: In addition to what Paul said, if they do develop the houses all at one time, they would come before the board. If they develop individually, one at a time, they would not come before you. Ms. Piha: With that, we can move to the applicant’s presentation. Sam Zullo. Mark Thomas ~d Company: We are the civil engineers on the project for Mr. Arrillaga, the owner of the property. With regard to the staffreport, we have actually reviewed those comments which were presented to us last week, and we are in concurrence with the realignment on the upper portion of the property as far as maintaining the alignment of the road in the area of the current fire lane. We have reviewed the staff comments as far as grades on the road, and we have presented to the staff a revised profile grade which we believe addresses those areas of concern where the grades exceeded 15%. We have reduced them to 15%, with the exception of the one area which was addressed in the EIR, the 400-foot area which was allowed at 18% to reduce grading. In the area of the cut and fill slopes, as Paul mentioned, in that one area where the entry road came into the site, there was a large slope. We have realigned the road in that area and reduced the tree removal and also the slope to what we think is an acceptable level. We have presented that alternative to the staff for their consideration. We understand that these items will be .~A:~Lostrancos.Page 4 addressed in more detail as this subdivision goes through the final design and final plans are prepared and the project goes through the Planning Commission and council. From a conceptual standpoint, our concern is the same as staff’s. We want to present a project that fits the site. We think that with regard to the retaining wall issue, we would like to have those items be addressed as the project goes through final design. If it is determined that there are some areas where a retaining wail would be appropriate in order to save some trees, that is certainly something that could be worked into the design. In some of the areas, we feel that aesthetically, by doing some grading as opposed to a continuous stretch of retaining wall, the appearance of the development as viewed from the outside would probably be an improvement. With the overall driveway and slope issues, the reason the amount of slope increased is that in the initial proposal, we had roadway slopes varying from 15 to 18%. We are attempting to reduce the amount of grading. Holding to the 15% maximum resulted in some additional grading. That is the reason why the quantity of dirt went up. With that, I would just like to say that we feel staff has done a good job of addressing the issues, and we are here to answer any questions you might have. one last issue that is probably going to come up is in regard to the timing of the project. It is the developer’s intent to file the subdivision map. The property is in a family trust, and as such, at this time, it is proposed for the use of the family, but it is a legal subdivision. The intent is to do one house for his daughter, and perhaps one for his son at this time. Beyond that, we really have no plans to build additional ht~uses on the property. Ms. Piha: Thank you. This would be the time to read the letter. It is dated November 5th, from Terilynn Langsev-Burt, 1 Wintercreek, Portola Valley, CA 94028. "Dear Architectural Review Board Members, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item. I live in Portola Valley and am a neighbor of the Arrillaga lands subdivision. I have been following the development review process and tracking the various proposals and alternatives which have been submitted regarding the project. The staff report report to the Architectural Review Board recommends that your board recommend conditional’ approval of certain improvements relating to the subdivision. The improvements correspond to the revised alternative which staffhas put forward to mitigate some impacts associated with the project. I understand the basis for the staff’s proposed alternative, but I do not agree with the proposed locations of the residential building pads associated with this alternative. The staff proposed alternative would allocate all but one of the homes in what is now an open meadow. The proposed building locations would be visible from many locations in the vicinity. There will be very little visual open space left on top of the property where the grasslands are currently. I believe that the cluster alternative which was studied in the Response to Comments in the environmental impact report is a better design solution for the property. In this alternative, most of the homes would be screened by existing natural vegetation. The open grasslands, for the most part, would maintain the appearance of open, undeveloped property. A:~Lostrancos.Page 5 The location of the building sites in the cluster alternative is visually far superior to the one put forward by staff, because it would be consistent with the city’s Open Space development criteria which state that the development "should be cited so that it is hidden from view as much as PoSsible." Also, this alternative would be consistent with the sections of the Open Space Development Criteria which state that development should be concentrated and that vegetation should appear natural from a distance. The cluster alternative studied in the FEIR Response to Comments would provide screening from natural vegetation as opposed from screening from introduced plantings which would be required with the staff proposed alternative. I support the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the improvements as recommended by staff as long as this approval does not preclude the possible future approval of the location of the building sites consistent with the 8-lot cluster alternative in Response to Com_ments in the EIR. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Terilynn Langsly-Burt." Ms. Piha: I will now call upon members of the public who would like to speak. Ted Vian, 2 Sunhill, Portola Valley, CA: I directly view the proposed development from my kitchen window. I have enjoyed for several years this wonderful grassland and the oak-studded. hillsides and knolls. This is a parcel that should not be developed, but assuming it is going to be developed, the main thrust of what needs to be done here is to preserve as much of that open grassland and as much of that tree coverage as possible. In that respect, I don’t think the staff recommendations have gone far enough. The cut and fill is still too extensive. There is still too much tree removal. The hillside will be scarified. If you view it from Foothill Park, if you view it from Portola Valley Ranch, it will look like Los Altos Hills with houses here and there, and lots of cut and fill and lots of impervious surface. I think there are three things I want to specifically recommend. One is that the water tank be fully buried and that. the replanting be replanted with trees that are compatible with the specific site on which they are to be planted, and that they be maintained by the developer for a period of five years as recommended by the staff. Beyond that, our experience in Portola Valley Ranch is that five years is not enough. Trees continue to die and be replaced: Therefore, there needs to be a continuing obligation put into the CC&Rs that would require that the tree coverage be maintained by the homeowners and residents of the area. Lastly I would like to recommend that the Portola Valley noise ordinance standards be used for this project. That would prohibit construction activity on Saturdays and Sundays. Finally, that the Woodside Fire Department fuel management standards be applied. The fire danger from this area is very near to Portola Valley, much more so than to Palo Alto, except for the Lee and Hewlett subdivisions. Thank you. Herb Borock. 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto: I believe that you should continue this item until you get the information you need. This is essentially a project that is piecemealing in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The orientation of the access roads before you are based upon illegally graded and infilled roads from about 15 years ago. There was not any enforcement followup (except for a nasty letter written to the applicant) by the Planning Department to see if anything was done about this. At a minimum, double fees need to be paid, A:kLostrancos.Page 6 because when you do building work in the absence of a permit, in court, you have to pay double fees. I guess the double fees should go on everything related to the project. Referring specifically to Attachment #-4 that is before you, the cross-hatched area shown for planting on Sheet #1 of Attachment #4 is an area of illegal fill. The trenching that is shown is as much as six feet deep.. The substantial evidence in the record, both from the test pitch and from testimony of people who are familiar with the site, is that that was a seasonal wetland. Illegal fill should be removed, exported off site, and the seasonal wetland restored. The water tank on Page 10 of your staff report indicates that it is 3,000 square feet, which would indicate a diameter of 62 feet. The calculations in the final EIR on Page 18 for the volume show a diameter of 42 feet. I think those two numbers need to be reconciled. The emergency access road that was illegally graded essentially connects the caretaker’s buildings on this parcel with the city-owned parcel of 7.7 acres that is being used as a construction staging area for the next parcel, which is the same applicant’s compound on a 50-acre former quarry site. If you read Forbes Magazine, you will see that he is consistently listed as a person who has a 200- acre estate. The only way he can have a 200-acre estate is if he owns or controls the city’s 7.7 acre parcel. That is the main piecemealing problem that we have here. A conditibn before you is’ that there be no construction storage on that city parcel, but in fact, that is ’happening now for the quarry parcel construction. So is that condition only related to this parcel’s construction materials, or is that condition related to the applicant’s parcel that he is currently developing north of the site? Thank you. Linda Elkind, 14 Hawk View, Portola Volley, CA: I have a letter from Ellen Christensen to read into the record, residing at 4217 Los Palos Avenue, Palo Alto. Ellen writes, "I have two general comments and then some specific comments I would like to make. First, there are a number of natural habitat and geologic hazard concerns around the siting of the access roads and water tank. I would encourage you to make a site visit before actually acting on the map issues before you. I think it is hard to make recommendations on the road access and siting issues without seeing the proposed locations and potential impacts. If you do adopt the staff recommendations today, I would suggest that your second review of this map at the final stage will be especially critical, because resolution of many of the serious impacts of this development are being left to that final map stage, i.e., additional investigation and remediation measures for slope stabilization of the access roads, a final detailed water study to confirm the water tank size, a detailed tree replanting plan, the issue of the percentage of impervious surface, etc. Specific Comments: 1) Proposed impervious surface exceeds 3.5% of site. The comment on Page 10 says that ’project engineer has indicated that it is the intent to adjust these amounts so that they are in compliance with the ordinance limits.’ The project should comply with the city requirements, and the map should reflect that compliance. The impervious surface should not be left to the intent of the project engineer. AALostrancos.Page 7, 2) Emergency Access Road: I am particularly concerned with the emergency access road which, as proposed, goes through several significant landslide hazard areas. In addition to investigating remediation measures for thisroad in its staff-proposed location, the alternative of using the Trapper Trail fire road into Foothill Park should be investigated. The current emergency access road [even with staff-proposed partial realignment] is a mess -- the slopes are already slumping (and severely) in some locations. 3) Water Tank: According to the staffreport, seven "protected" trees will be destroyed by placement of the water tank. The report on Page 17 suggests that it may be possible to build a significantly smaller tank. The smallest feasible tank is what should be constructed, both to minimize the damage to the habitat and to discourage future intensification of use of the parcel. Additionally, screening of the tank should take the form of more than just partial burial and an earthtone paint. Seven trees should be replanted in the vicinity to mediate the loss of those destroyed, and the tank itself should be screened with shrubbery to the extent feasible, consistent with access and safety requirements. 4) Storm water run-off: After construction, and even with the proposed realignment of the main access road and elimination of the storm water retention basin, there should be some deflector system that deals with storm water runoff, so that it is not flowing directly into Los Trancos Creek." Linda Elkind. 14 Hawk View, Portola Valley, CA: I am a neighbor who also looks out on this property, and I also hike the open space district lands extensively, especially Windy Hill, which looks right down on this property, and also Coal Mine Ridge and the open space trails that are a part of the Portola Valley Ranch system. They also look down on this hill. It is a beautiful property. So I ask you to make your decisions in the context of the setting and its extreme visual significance and sensitivity also in the context of this process. Several comments have been made about the complexity of dealing with this, given the process. I would like to echo the comments made by Terilynn. I hope that the actions that you take today will in no respect compromise the ability of the Planning Commission and City Council to consider this realigned subdivision and the alternative proposed in the final EIR, which would greatly reduce the visual impacts on the property. Given that, let me say that I think that with the specific comments and additional conditions I.am going to make, I think the staffhas-presented you with excellent alternatives and some very thoughtful possibilities. I will get down to my particular questions, and perhaps it will be easier for you to follow this by going through the Staff report, Section 3A where your conditions are listed, 1 a, slope cut and fill not to exceed 2.1. I think that is important, and I support it. Next is Point 3a, Page 2. I have an overriding concern about best management practices with storm water runoff. The conditions that the staffhave included for the construction period I think are excellent, but there are materials being prepared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that are being distributed that have to do with long-term runofffrom residential properties, and I think that because this all goes into Los Trancos Creek and San Francisquito Creek, which is viable for steelhead, the most extreme and restrictive and protective best management practices A:kLostrancos.Page 8 should be implemented as a condition for all subsequent improvements and development on this property. On Page 4, Item 5c, there is a classification about retaining wails. I think it is important that there be something in there that retaining walls be crib wall to allow planting in niches to improve their appearance, particularly since they are going to be massive and extensive. No. 4 on Page 3, the landscape plan, the condition before you to approve is that it be reviewed by the city arborist and planning staff. I think it is important that a landscape architect review these plans. The issue here is the continuity of the vegetation as well as the specific species and. conditions for their growth. And two final points. I think this property has an extreme geologic challenge. This is the geologic map from the EIR. The basic problem is one that Ellen Christensen raised, and that is that there are landslides along the roads providing access to Los Trancos Road. The main access road goes through a landslide; the emergency access road goes through it. I question the wisdom of going ahead and approving a road until you have a final remediation or identification fill there on these road. Otherwise, you will have everyone going through landslides to get out to Los Trancos Road. Mr. Zullo: The water tank provides adequate pressure so that in the event we had a power outage, the tank could still feed the fire protection system without any boosters. By gravity, we would have sufficient pressure to feed the fire protection system. That would occur for ail but one of the residences at the current location, which would mean that that particular system, for its sprinkler system within the house, would have to have a booster. The final sizing of the tank will require the fire marshal to review the requirements. The initiai review, as indicated by the consultant that the city retained, shows that it could be a maximum of 200,000 gailons. Mr. Peters0n: I have a related question related to the emergency access road. One of the comments made was to use that rather than the design. Mr. Zullo: It is not legaily possible. A subdivision has to have legal access on a public right-of- way. Los Trancos Road is the public right-of-way. That area in’the back is a private easement, and it would not be possible to subdivide the property with the access not having legal access onto a public street. Mr. Jensen: Could I interject here, as it does relate to Board member Peterson’scomments. There are easements that are already recorded through the adjacent property for emergency vehicle access, but not for primary access, so I am assuming that Mr. Zullo can clarify that. The use of that back roadway for emergency vehicle access and access back through Los Trancos Road is already recorded by deed. That is strictly for emergency vehicle access, not primary access for the subdivision itself. Mr. Peters0n: Is that emergency access a requirement? A:kLostrancos.Page 9 Mr. Jensen: Yes, it is. The length of the primary, access road on this site exceeds the maximum length for a cul-de-sac, permitted by the subdivision ordinance. When you exceed that length as a cul-de-sac, you must provide a secondary means of ingress and egress. Mr. Peterson: I will ask the question again, and you can answer it the way you like. Do you think there is a possibility that the emergency road could work legally? Mr. Zullo: As a main road? Mr. Peterson: "Yes. Mr. Zullo: No. The slopes on the back side are much steeper than they are on the from side. To grade the kind of road we would have to grade on the back side would require more grading than we are doing on the front side. The other problem is the legal problem. The Lee subdivision, there is a homeowners association that actually controls some of that land on the back side. It was set up, as Mr. Jensen mentioned, as an emergency access route. It would not be possible to provide the public access that would be needed to switch them around. Mr. Peterson: Do you have any comments to make about the water supply adequacy and the emergency road? Nick Marinaro. Fire Marshall. City of Palo Alto: In researching the code and the NFPA standards for the requirements for a wildlife area, and that is not factoring in the demand for domestic use, it is strictly emergency use only. It appears that the 200,000 gallons would well exceed the fire code requirements. Actually, our preliminaries were showing that even with multiple use, according to the code, you have to have a minimum of about 25,000 gallons available. If we took the worst scenario and applied that, the code also says you have to have a minimum of 250 gallons flowing for two hours. If we applied that to each individual house, it would still be well below 200,000 gallons. So Mr. Zullo will address that atter we do the final calculations. Of course, we will have to factor in the domestic use issues. It may, in fact, be a tank that can be reduced from the 200,000 gallon size. The only other issue is the emergency access road that you alluded to. Presently, that road, when we staffed the foothill station four months of the year during the dry land season, that is accessed through the park. Presently one of the mitigation measures, which is scheduled on the council agenda for November 17th for approval, is our automatic gate agreement with Woodside, because one of the mitigation measures was to have the Woodside Fire Department as a primary resl~onder. If this were the emergency access through the park, as proposed, that is only accessible from Page Mill Road, so that mitigation measure would not work at all..Woodside would access the property from Los Trancos Road. Otherwise, it would be our units from Station 2 at Hanover, which is the primary responder to the wild land season, which is essentially June and October. Those other parts of the year when it would not be staffed, the engine from the Hanover station would either have to access by Alpine Road, or an even less. desirable alternative response route would go through the park and then access the back road. There is also the issue of being able to A:~_~strancos.Page 10 maintain the weight of a pumper engine, which we calculate to be 40,000 pounds or 20 tons. So the emergency access issue, we are looking at the agreement that will be approved. The agencies involved have agreement on that, and it is in the final stages right now. Access offLos Trancos Road is going to be the most expeditious response for emergencies in that area. Scott MacPherson, Nichols. Berman: We are the environmental impact report consultants for the city. I have just a couple of comments, first regarding the water tank. Again, as a few people have mentioned, we took the 200,000gallon figure as a worst case scenario, as is required for environmental review. As we wrote that up, we did not actually expect that 200,000 gallons would be required. The final amount depends upon what Nick finds and on the final decision of the building sites. In regard to the emergency access road, there seem to be a couple of 0ptions that some people have mentioned. One is to have just one access road. As Paul mentioned, that would be in violation of the subdivision act. In regard to environmental impacts .and whether it was in violation or not, our traffic engineer has always been extremely wary of single access routes into a subdivision in the first place. The EIR would have found that to be a significant impact. We usually recommend two accesses into any subdivision into a rural area where there is a risk of wildfire. In this case, even if the back emergency access road were deemed to be the primary. access, that would still mean that the main access road, Tierra Arboles, would still need to be improved with slope, which would involve grading and/or retaining walls to provide emergency access in from that direction as well. So I think the subdivision is going to be stuck with two accesses, whether or not which one the primary is going to be. That is basically it. Sam Zullo: What we did was to take that route you have been discussing. That is basically the route here. It follows the old fire access road into the site. This was the route in the valley here. As part of our original proposal, we had suggested that that be a driveway for Lot 7, so the driveway that is shown on the plan for Lot 7 would be also used for this road, which meets the 15% criterion. So it is acceptable. We have replotted the lots, and they seem to work okay at that location.. So we feel we do not have a problem with it. Mr. Peterson: And it needs less grading? Is that correct? Mr. ZOI10: The grading does not seem to be an issue. There is no tree cover in that area along either route when you get into that area, so it is basically steeper than the route we had proposed through the valley there, but this leads to those concerns about keeping that valley area in natural grassland, and we can understand that. Mr. Peters0n: Am I correct that that does preclude the need for the storm water? Mr. Zullo:. The storm water litigation basically~ our proposal in putting that in was to provide some retention in an area that was already a natural drop area. If it is desirable to eliminate that, we can certainly eliminate it. Mr. Peterson: Does realignment of the road help in the elimination of that? A:kLostrancos.Page 11 Mr. Zullo: With the realignment of the road, the water is still basically within the road. Mr. Peterson: Is there a landscape architect retained? Mr. Zullo: We have a landscape architect who is a part of our group, Laughterbaugh-Hill. In addition to the environmental consultants, we have had biologists do an independent study who have reviewed the site. We have also had some people experienced in wetlands review the mitigation measures as far as whether there were issues involved in the rural construction .as it is currently being proposed. We do not find that there are any wetlands that are impacted with the construction of the project we are proposing. Mr. Peterson: We might hear from Dave Dockter about his reaction to the removal of the trees. Mr. Dockter: I want to compliment Mr. Jensen’s pursuing this revision to add retaining walls. This last phase is a far supe.rior solution to the previous one. There is a lot less tree movement. It is greatly more sensitive, environmentally, to the Whole region. As you were speaking about the former plan to go down in the swale, it would take a lot of grading, and I think it would also take out a couple of trees that now do not have to come out if we just keep the road where it is now. The road is pretty well hidden. It is not right on the backbone 6fthe hilltop. It crosses over, and is just behind. The recommendations for the placement of the building pads are adjacent to forest cover, but they are not placed in the middle of a forest grouping, so that will reduce tree removal. Mr. Peterson: I wondered if the recommendations for replanting are necessary? Mr. Dockter: The mitigations outlined require that the plant material that gets put back in on the property is environmentally sensitive and will work with the region, and will help with erosion control. So that needs to be identified specifically, but the verbiage is there for the map that will require that. I will be involved in the review of that, and what oak trees go in. Even in the placement, I will be involved, such as how many feet on center for the trees being replaced. Mr, Peterson: I have another question about the ret.aining walls. I sense from your answer that you are a little reluctant to replace retaining walls with grading. If we were to ask for a significant number of retaining walls instead of grading, what kind of retaining walls would you propose, and what kind of screening or landscaping possibilities are there? Mr, Z~Ilo: The type of walls, if they were going to be put in, would be something that would come up as part of the project design. I heard crib (?) walls mentioned. The difficulty with crib walls is that they take up a lot more room than a conventional wall. They may not be appropriate from the standpoint that you might end up having to do more grading to accommodate crib walls. So we think that in some areas, as the arborist has mentioned, there are some significant trees that should be protected, but walls could certainly be placed. As a part of the staff review, that item will get addressed as to where they are appropriate and where they are not. A:~,~ostrancos.Page 12 I don’t think blanket retaining walls.everywhere would be the right answer, not from a cost standpoint. It would cost about the same to grade the hill as it would be to put a wall in, but aesthetically, I am not sure it would look right. Certainly, walls in certain locations probably would provide some reduction in tree removal, as the arborist has mentioned. As the arborist reviewing the tree removal has indicated, because in many areas the trees right now are very close, only a few feet apart, the trees that are being removed, in many cases are dead or are in very poor condition. Some removal providing some air space in there might be healthy for the trees that remain. Of course, I would leave that to the arborist. Those kinds of decisions will come up during the project design. Mr. Peterson: I have one last question for staff. Will this come back to the ARB for materials and height, etc.? Mr. Jensen: The recommendations here again are atypical, ’but the recommendations for the final landscape plan and tree replanting plan and all of these other improvements that have design implications would come back to you during the final map review process before the map goes before the council for action. That would include retalnin, g wall details. There is a recommendation in the conditions to use a timber type of a wall design and to prohibit the use of the concrete block type walls. That is why there is a limit to the height of the wall. Mr. Zullo: That could be a problem. The difficulty you have, as Paul has mentioned, is that timber only works for a certain height. Also, you are concerned about the durability of timber. It has a life expectancy, and this is a wall you are putting in that is going to be there for a number of years. Generally, we say timber works up to six feet. If it is anything taller than six feet, timber ’doesn’t work. The other problem you have is that you can certainly use other materials. There are a lot of materials you can use in a wall that do allow for vegetation plantings, and it still is a concrete material. You can face the walls with a slump stone or a split rock, something like that to make it aesthetically more pleasing. In some areas, especially on the downslope side of the road, if you are trying to put a wall in, one of the effective ways to do it is to drill a caisson about 12 inches in diameter into the ground every ten feet or so, and in between, put in concrete. That is something that would give you minimum disturbance. To put wood in a situation like that buried in the ground, I am not sure what kind of life we are talking about. To have a blanket statement that we have to use wood everywhere could be a design problem. If that were the criterion, it would probably limit the amount of walls you could put in. Mr. Marinaro: Our foothill guideline is a maximum of 15% under most conditions,. I think Woodside allows up to 18%. We actually had a site visit, the previous fire marshal and myself and some of the designers who looked at this particular issue, and given some of the mitigation measures, also with Jim Harrington, the senior engineer from Public Works, and on this particular area, which is 400 feet on that swayback from the access road, some additional mitigation measures were proposed, such as a squared surface to be able to give better traction for fire engines. Also some drainage in that particular stretch of road so you would not get water buildup so that the trucks would not hydroplane. Jim also reviewed that, and on that basis, we were agreeable to allowing that particular small stretch to have a grade of 18%. That is up to the jurisdiction of the City. A:~ostrancos.Page 13 Mr. Mafinaro: The existing water towers we have in the foothills, there only is a pumping station. Mr..Bellomo: All tree removal would be replaced with 15-gallon oaks? Mr. Dockter: The mitigation number is three to one. If one protected tree comes out, then three oaks would be planted. We would determine the proper placement of these mitigation trees. The actual size is still undetermined. We would need to identify that so that we are really certain that- they are either 24-inch box or fifteens, or five gallons or -- Mr. Jensen: We had specified 15 gallon container size for all replacement. Mr. Dockter: Is that right? Okay. That would be about six or seven feet tall and about an inch in diameter. .Mr. Petersen: How long would it take for the tree to mature? Mr. Dockter: About ten years. Mr. Alfonso: I have a question for the applicant. Has there been any look taken at bringing the trail this way7 I know there is a steep incline here. Did you ever study keeping the road at a lower level7 Mr. Zullo: We looked at the site, and with the terrain existing there, the location we picked was the one that involved the least amount of grading. Alternative routes, since there is already a road graded there, were steeper and if you look at the site, they were more heavily vegetated. Mr. Alfonso: I have one more question. Could the building sites be readjusted? Is that a possibility? Mr, Zullo: Yes, that is possible. Mr. Jensen: That is actually a very good point to bring up, because what you are looking at is basically the alignment of the road, the grading, etc. What you see in the recommendations by staff includes three alternatives: the 8-lot cluster alternative, which.is where the building envelopes are recommended to be placed on the draft EIP,, a 15-lot cluster alternative, which is also in the draft EIR, and this additional alternative that was prepared for the Response to Comments that was referred to by several of.the speakers. It moves the building envelopes closer to the end of the cul-de-sac into the wooded area. -That also follows the same road line. So if you were to.recommend approval of the road line as recommended by the staff, it would not compromise the placement of building envelopeswhen considered by the Planning Commission. But I would like to confirm it with the EIR consultants, because they prepared the EIR alternatives. Is that correct? The question is, if the Architectural Review Board were to recommend what staff is recommending here, does that basically compromise the location of the building envelopes in this plan versus the alternate? A:kLostrancos.Page 14 Mr. Jensen: No, if you were to approve the subdivision improvements recommended in the staff report, there are a number of different options on where to place homes. My understanding is that the Planning Commission will consider the building locations. Typically, in a design process, you would like to know where your residential building lots are before you implement the road. Mr. Zullo: In response to that question, we looked at the alternative road alignment and building sites, and I think as Paul mentioned in his comments, we actually have shifted the building sites for the lots as the EIR had requested that we do. In shifting the road, from our standpoint, in looking at the new road alignment, it is only Building Site 7 that really would require removal. Building Site 7 falls primarily in the road area currently.’ That document over there I believe suggests shifting it to this area here. That document suggests a tighter cluster, and I have heard pluses and minuses about putting the homes in the meadows. The balance of our sites, as the EIR has directed us to adjust, we feel are compatible with the realignment as being suggested. Mr. Lippert: Were wildlife impacts addressed? Mr. Jensen: It was addressed in the EIR. If it is something you want to comment upon, you may address it. Mr. Lippert: Wildlife corridors and various resources, etc.7 Mr. Bellom0: I wonder if you could clarify for me again the plans with regard to development of the sites. Mr. Zullo: Right nov,’, there are no current plans prepared to build any houses. All I know is what Mr. Arrillaga has explained. He has said that this particular property is in a family trust, which consists of him and the children. His plan is to build family residences on the property as they are needed. Right now, I think his daughter is married, and his son is not. I believe that is right, or else it is vice versa. At any rate, there are no plans drawn up right now. He has indicated to me that his plan is to build a family compound. Mr. Lippcrt: In the report, there are some photographs that show some suggested houses. Mr. Zullo: Those were big houses. What we were asked in the EIR is to look at a worst case situation. The EIR consultant then took those mockups and addressed it in that context. The approval of the houses, as Paul mentioned, would have to go through the site development review process at the city -- the siting of them and the size of them and what they are going to look at. We have not drawn any plans for houses at this point. Mr. Lippert: So the report here really does not indicate the nature of the houses. Mr. Zullo: I think those houses are much bigger than what is realistic for the site. We thought those were big houses. Just what size house a family would want, I do not know. Environmentally, we did not want to get into a situation where we were not adequately addressing it. We tried to look at it from a worst case standpoint. A:~strancos.Page 15 Mr.Lippert: The information I am trying to get. is what would be visible from Los Trancos Roadl Mr.Zullo: From Los Trancos Road, you cannot see the site. You cannot see the residences. Mr.Vian: The project is visible from Vista Verde. Mr. Zullo: Well, I’d have to be convinced of that. I have driven the route aiot of times, and when I am up at the site, I have never been able to see the road. Mr. Alfonso: I have .a question for Nick. With regard t’o the water tank, when you asked them to calculate the amount of water there is, is that water to protect property or life safety? Mr. Marinaro: Our perspective is what would be needed to protect the homesin a fire situation. Mr. Alfonso: So what you are aider is protecting property. Mr. Marinaro: Yes, from our perspective. Then there would be the additional factor from the water department as to what would be necessary for domestic use. The requirement is reduced somewhat by code when the buildings are sprinkled. These will have sprinklers, as a matter of fact, they are required to have a sprinkler system, a fully fire protected system in all of the homes that will be built. Mr. Lippert: I have a question for the arborist. With regard to the trees, is there a difference between growing some of these trees from seed versus putting in 15-gallon trees? Is there a significant difference in how these trees will mature? M.r, Dockter: If you put in seed-grown saplings, they would adapt to their existing terrain much better than larger trees, which would be the 15-gallon, because you are bringing in a specific root ball and plopping into the ground. However, those need to be irrigated. They are much more temperamental. They can die in just two days of heat, whereas the larger trees have more of a root system established. They can survive difficult periods a little easier. So I am going to be recommending a mix in variation of sizes of trees to be replanted, with some seed. It was mentioned in the mitigation report that seeds from existing trees that were in this area, I don’t ~ know if is possible to get those, but the local nurseries here may have them. We want indigenous species put back on the site. To answer your question specifically, I think a range of plant material would be the.proper thing to do in this area for this devdopment. Mr. Lippen: If they were grown from seedlings, the period of time required to maintain them should be adequate with regard to those taking hold? Mr. Dockter: About five years should be required for a guarantee period. It is mentioned in the EIR. It does also mention that if those trees do not survive, 80% of the trees must survive. If it falls below that, there needs to be a replacement program. I am a little unclear if, in four years from now, if a number needed to be replaced, does that extend the period for another five years for those plants to take hold? So that needs to be identified. A:kLostrancos.Page 16 Ms. Piha: Is it the applicant’s intent to develop these lots for his children? Mr. Zullo: He doesn’t have eight children. Initially, we had ten lots, We laid them out on the property, and two of them did not work, so we discounted those. That is how we ended up with eight. Ms. Piha: How did you determine that? Mr. Zullo: Walking the site and simply driving a stake in the ground, then going back to the plans and seeing if we could make it work. ,Ms. Piha: With access roads, etc. Mr. Zullo: Right. Mr, Peterson: -I have one question on which I would appreciate some input. What studies have you done, to date, on the geology, the geological conditions? Mr. Zullo: We have had borings made by United Soils Engineering on the feasibility of the site for single-family residential. They prepared a preliminary soils report on the feasibility of developing the sites, as well as for the sanitary sewer systems that would be installed on the individual lots. Those reports were then reviewed by an independent geologist retained by the city as to the feasibility of the recommendations that had been made. They were supported in a second review. Mr. Peterson: What about the road itself2. Mr, Zullo: The roads and slopes were also addressed. With regard to 1.5:1 versus 2:1, the reasons that we basically proposed 1.5:1 in some of the areas of the cut areas was that it impacted fewer trees, and based on the geotechnical review of the material and the stability of the material, the soils engineer said that the material was stable, and there would not be a problem with a 1.5:1 slope. Mr. Peterson: When this goes to Planning Commission and City Council, will the density be reviewed? Mr. Jensen: Absolutely. The Planning Commission and City Council, by virtue of the findings to approve a tentative map, must review the appropriateness of the density and find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. Mr. Zullo is correct. The maximum density permitted by zoning for this property size is around 15 lots. We are talking about a proposal of about 18 acres per unit. Ms, Piha: what if this subdivision ends up being developed in phases? If they do two or more houses at a time, then we get this back. A:kLostrancos.Page 17 Mr. Jensen: Yes, at least, in the ~’ecommendations that are being drafted for Planning Commission consideration, there is a whole list of things being recommended for the deeds of each lot, because we have an EIR addressing a subdivision, and then we have a separate process for homes developed sometime in the future. We need to link all of that together. It is being recommended that the deed for each lot, the final map and the CC&Rs all acknowledge that a site and design review permit is required for each lot. The city’s ordinance in and of itself has built into it that if you have two or more developed at one time, they would come back to you. Ms. Piha: That is the reason why I asked the question. It is possible that the owner might sell off these parcels, and they might be developed individually without coming back before this body. Ms. Grote: When they come in for a building permit, they would still go through site and design, which goes through the Planning Commission and City Council. It would not come through you, but it would still go through our standard site and design process. If it is on the deed, there is a greater chance that they would know that. Otherwise, they would come in to apply for a building permit, and then they would find out about it. One way or the other, they will be advised of that. Ms. Piha: What is the time flame on that? Ms. Grote: One building permit would have to be completed before another would be applied for. Ms. Piha: So the only thing that would return to this board would be the retaining walls and the landscaping. Mr. Jensen: Yes, and colors for the tank and tree replantings. Ms. Piha: Do you have any indication as to when development will occur on the lots? Do you think they will be individually developed? Mr, Zull0: I do not know of anything right now, but I would guess that probably the first house would be built in two years. Ms, Pih~a: But most likely, they will be individuals? Mr. Zullo: I would say that right now. I know that legally, the process allows for John to sell the lots. I know that he has personally mentioned to pretty much anyone who wanted to listen that he does not plan to sell the lots, but legally, he could sell them. If you know John, he does not sell .much. There is no need for him to sell them. Right now, the adjacent piece of property is kind of his spot. He calls it his ranch, and this he calls the family compound. Ms.P~: We can now begin the board comments. Mr. Alfonso: I appreciate at this moment the subdivision is only for 8 lots, when the maximum out there allows almost twice that density. That is very important, I do appreciate that very much. I do have an overriding concern which is the end of Page Mill Road. The hillside there is A:kLostrancos.Page 18 littered with houses. All these houses light up in the hills, and that is an overriding concern. That is one of the reasons why I asked about what is seen from the road, because that is the way the development is going to be perceived. It sounds as though the way it has been changed that unless all of the houses, or two or more houses will be developed at a time, it would not come back before us. So from that point of view, I do have some concerns that what will happen is that we will see the houses from up on the top, and they will not bear any relationship to the natural landscape. The third thing I am concerned about is the water tank. That gets to my question about whether we are protecting property or protecting life safety. I don’t think it matters what color you paint that water tank. That water tank is going to be visible. If you paint it green, in the summertime it is going to be visible,and if you paint it sort of a golden brown, it is going to be visible in the wintertime. So from that point of view, I think I would like to see that tank reduced to the minimum possible and still be able to protect the properties’ water pressure needs. Those are basically my comments. Mr, Peterson: I particularly appreciate the comments that have come from the neighbors. I appreciate the Planning Commission of the adjoining community looking at this very carefully. That really is a help to us. I do appreciate that. I am persuaded that this development is working very hard to make it compatible with the site. It has been looked at from a site basis rather than an arbitrary development basis, which is, how much can I get on there? Anything you put out there is going to have a substantial impact, so the mitigations are really needed. I do think that the mitigations recommended by the EIR and the stafflook very good to me. I think some of the comments that were made are appropriate in terms of drainage and long-term drainage issues. The noise issues I am not able to judge, but I think the project will generate some short-term noise issues during construction, but they are probably going to be spread out over many years. So something in the approval about addressing those issues should be included. To me, the recommendations by the planning staff seem to address pretty well everything I was concerned about. I might mention a couple of them, although they will be coming back again. One is the retaining walls. I think you are going to have to address that on an individual basis. It is very difficult to get a grip on this. The road grading will need to be analyzed very carefully as you go .along the road every few feet, look at it and see what works best, what saves the most trees, what is the balance. What will those retaining walls look like, if there are retaining walls? Will there be plantings on them? How high will they be? I personally have difficulty with wood retaining walls because they just don’t last very long. Mr, Bellomo: As a person who grew up in the hills up there, I have a lot of sensitivity for what is happening. I do appreciate that eight units are being proposed at this point. If we have a chance to integrat.e them, that would be a great opportunity.. The~ one issue that was not brought up is the street lighting. I have concerns for the neighbors and one for Foothill Park. I know that they have mentioned low sodium vapor lights, that reflect off thepavement and you will need to take a good look at that. As Bob said, when I saw the A:~.x~strancos.Page 19 diagrammatics of each section of cut, and I see 40 feet of cut, there are some concerns about the impact to that hillside. I am all for retaining w~lls to mitigate the extent of the cut and fill. I would rather see an adobe colored concrete retaining wall than wood. A stone retaining wall could reduce the impact of the retaining wall. It is going to be interesting to see how each section works to determine the extent of the cut. I am very familiar with how equipment drivers proceed in their excavation process. It is hard to keep them under control. We could have a four-inch-thick book on how they should. implement the removal of dirt. So managing the cut and fill work will take a lot of care. I am also concemed about the tank, and whether it is possible tO reduce it’in size, submerging it, so it is less visible. I look forward to seeing this item again and being able to look at the specific issues. Thanks. Ms, Piha: I, too, am persuaded by the discussion here to support this project. I completely understand the significance of the 8 sites, and they really are Site-derived locations, not an arbitrary number with an inte~:est in maximizing the available property. I also hope that these are developed individually. I would rather see that they are developed on an as-needed basis, so that eight cookie-cutter houses are not put in there when they are not needed, just to maximize the property. So I am encouraged that is the direction it could go in and they could be textural and suit the needs of the individual families they are being developed for, rather than being the product of a single developer. In terms of the water tank issue, I think that the applicant has as much of a vested interest as the rest of us to screen the water tank and lessen the visual impact and to make it the size that is appropriate for its use. I feel very confident that the tank will not be overly visible. I think there was quite a bit of discussion expressed on behalf of the applicant that will need further study. I think the staffhas done an excellent job in discugsing the various issues related to this project. I really appreciate their detailing of some alternatives and proposals, and the applicant is receptive to that. The parties are working together rather than as individuals, which is encouraging. The neighbors have had a chance to express their opinions, and hopefully, the dialogue will continue to be collected as this progresses. So I approve of what is being proposed. Does anyone want to help with a motion? Mr. Peters0n: I think we agree with what you have expressed. Mr. Jensen: The Board might wish to support the recommended changes in conditions that have been suggested to Attachment 3A. ~: We recommended two modifications. Mr. Jensen: And by the way, the issue of the street lighting is addressed in your details to come back at the time of final map. I did want to mention to you that the reason why it was put in there is because there is no street lighting proposed as part of this project. In the event that it is A:kLos~rancos.Page 20 required at key turns of the road or whenever by the Police Department as a safety issue, that will have to come back to you. With regard to the recommendations, there are two here. Oneis for you to consider the environmental impact report. Secondly, that your recommendation goes on to the City Council for subdivision improvements. They will be considered when the Planning Commission and City Council consider the tentative map. They will be subject to the conditions which are generally depicted in recommended changes to Attachment 4, which are the graphics that represent the staff-recommended changes. There were two changes that were brought up, one was condition 4B, #3 on Page 3A-3. That is "Tree planting size shall be a minimum of 15-gallon container stock." In hearing from the city arborist, you would prefer to see a range. So you could comment on that condition. Secondly, under Condition #42 on the last page, it references the five-year monitoring plan for tree replanting, There is a last paragraph that does recommend that following the five years, a certified arborist shall present additional measures and detailed recommendations for remediation. You may wish to add language in there regarding additional timing for monitoring, if necessary. That, by the way, is not unusual. Mr. Lippert: I have a question for staff. Is there any restriction with regard to materials on houses in the foothills? I am referring specifically to roofing materials. Ms. Grote: There has been some discussion about restricting copper. That is due to water quality, as that does run off, creating a problem as far as the creeks are concerned. That has not become a requirement or an official restriction, but it is strongly recommended against. Some houses can propose that kind of a roof. Mr. Lippert: I have one other question regarding material on the roads. I know it is frowned upon to not have paved surfaces because of mud and oil dripping., Ms. Grote: You might refer to the Public Works department about that. We have usually required some sort of paving. It has come up recently that there are some interlocking pavers that can withstand the. same amount of weight for fire and other emergency vehicles, and have better permeability. That came up for a driveway recently. So either Jim or Nick may want to comment on that. Mr. Harrington: Could you rephrase the question and be specific as to the pavement area you are speaking to. Are you referring to the access road, the main road, or the driveways? Mr. Lippert: I am only talking about driveways. Mr. Harrin~on: We have the opportunity for them to recommend almost anything they like, provided it meets some sound foundation requirement. We have approved a newkind of material, which I believe is echo stone, which does allow for infiltration, which would be in keeping with A:~Lostrancos.Page 21 .the Best Management Practices that were referred to earlier. That is .something that we do encourage, and we have done for it for a good number of years. Mr. Lippert: Is that like an interlocking paver? Mr. Harrin~on: You could say it is like an interlocking paver, but what actually happens is that the way it is constructed, there zae grooves in it such that it allows water to penetrate immediately and not run off. So the result is that the pavement below has to be designed to compensate for the additional water in the foundation. Mr. Peters0n: Will the final recommendations be included in the information that goes to.Portola Valley? Mr. Jensen: Yes, there is a mailing list and there is a separate list of interested parties. So that will continue. One other thing I want to mention regarding conditions that was brought up is that there seemed to be some support for some mitigation measures for long-term drainage work. If you wish to add that to your conditions, that might be something you might wish to include in your recommendation. Ms. Piha: Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION: Mr. Peterson: I will try it, but fortunately, staffhas already done it for me. I move that we recommend to the City Council conditional approval for the proposed subdivision based upon the findings presented in Attachment 2A and subject to the conditions presented in Attachment 3A, and subject to the provisions of the map-designed layout in Attachment 4. In addition, the items we discussed, which are in Attachment 3A, #4b3 regarding required sizes for tree replanting. That was on Page 10, #42. Also to include some provision for long-term drainage controls. SECOND: By Chair Piha. Any discussion? Mr. Lippert: I don’t know if Item 42 has been properly addressed, the monitoring of the tree replanting program. Mr. Peterson: The issue on that would be to have a provision for the arborist to address the tree sizes. Mr. Alfonso: The arbodst has the fight to review any subsequent plantings that have to be replaced over a period of five years. Mr, Peterson: I would state it to say that he has the fight to further ask for a time extension, if necessary. Ms. Piha: Is that an amendment? Mr. Peterson: Yes. A:kI~strancos.Page 22 Mr. Lippert: I have one other question with regard to the amendment of the motion. Can we place a condition there with regard to having bronze skylights? I know that sounds a little bizarre, but I am concerned with the environmental issue of light pollution. Ms. Grote: Not at this point. The buildings are not before you for specifid design review. Mr. Lippert: I know they are not. .Ms, Grote: No, you cannot attach a condition on something that is not yet approved, or in front of you for review. Mr. Peterson: We are supposed to review the EI~ not the houses. Mr. Lippert: I know. That is why I asked about materials. Mr. Jensen: It is a good point to bring up, because there are mitigation measures in the EIR relating to building materials and colors. That may be something we can look at when the recommendations are in front of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lippert: I don’t know if that is possible, but in addition, there is also mitigation for any impacts and mitigations for light and glare. Ms. Grote: It is not possible to comment on individual houses at this point, but you may want to make a comment that would be forwarded to the council that you essentia!.ly agree with those mitigation measures in the EIR. Mr. Jensen: The mitigation measures will have to be tied to the map itself so that future owners will know that they must comply with these measures. Mr. Lippert: Then I would like to state in the motion that we make a recommendation to the City Council and the Planning Commission that they look at the color of glazing in skylights. Mr. Peterson: It may be more appropriate to say that we support the EIR mitigations that were recommended in the staffreport and the EIR. Ms. Piha: Any further discussion? Mr. Alfonsg: If, in fact, the configuration of the tentative map is changed and it does come back for r.eview, will these issues would come back? Mr. Jensen: That is correct. Ms, Piha: We have an amended motion and second. I will second the amended motion. All those in favor? (All ayes) A:~l.,ostrancos.Page 23 Nov~mbrr I I. 1907 ATTACHMENT 11 CLMRIJJM[R tltJDROLOGtJ ,Mr. Scott McPherson Nichols Bermap 142 MJrme, St. San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Los Trancos Subdivision EIR- Flooding on Buckeye Creek Dear Scott, Watermed At your request, I’ve assessed the flooding histo .ry and the potential for project impacts on the existing flood hazed on Buokeye Creek The assessment included a planimetered estimate of the watershed area (not addressed in the ELK), review of the original ELK peak flow computations tbr site StJb-watershed !, and conversations with engineering staff of the City of Pale Alto Engineering Division. +a.~ [mcisco, (,q Buckeye Creek parallels the northern access roadway that extends from Los Trances Road, east along the northern property boundary, and the through the Arrillaga compound’s maintenance yard. Upstream of the compound m Foothills Park, the creek forks into two branches, one of which fbrms the outlet channel for+Borunda Lake, The Buckeye Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 940 acres (1,5 sq. miles) and is nearly fully undeveloped, with the bulk of the area contained within Foothills Park .lug upstream of its confluence with Los Trances Creek, Buckeye Creek enters a large expanse of freshwater wetland en route to the inlet of a 36-inch culvert under Los Trances Road The willow and cattail thicket is dense and the culvert entrance was unmaintainexl at the time of the 1996-.97, site inspections. EIR team members did. observe some sheet flooding oecun-ing over Los Trances Road at the Buckeye Creek crossing during the 1997 winter season. According to John Carlson of’the City’s Engineering Division, the City receives annual complaints regarding roadway flooding over Los Trances Road at the Buckeye Creek crossing. Nearly all of the calls received occur during the first few rains of each winter season This leads John to suspect that early season accumulations of debris and the resulting, temporary culvert blockage are likely responsible for the reported flooding. The City has not to date analyzed the hydraulic pefformancm of the existing culvert and has no immediate plans to do so Both John and Joe Teresi, the senior staff engineer for the Division, understand this stretch of Los Trances Road to be outside of the Ci .ty’s maintenance jurisdiction, i.e. a private roadway. Therefore~ the City. claims no responsibility for roadway (or culvert) maintenance I under~tand tha~ the Planmng Depar~ment~is aware of s~me recent negotiations between the chics of Pal~, Alto and Porto]a Valley regarding ow’~ership and maintenance of this stretch of Los Tran¢os P.oad IfPaio .~d~o does ~c, cept responsibility for r~adway maintenance, Engineerint Division slaff will likely conduc[ a hydraulic ass~ssmem of’the e.xistin~ culvert and the reported roadway flooding. At thal juncture, some action d~sign~d to remedy the miao~ flood hazard (.re: vehicle safety on Los Trancos Road) will undoubtedly be forthcoming, The peak flow c~mpuzations previously conducted for this EIR projected an increase in s~bwatersh~ ] impexvious surface area of’ ] .93 acres. Given ~he presence of the undevdoped watershed areas witbJn Foothill Park and the largely compleled development or’the principal Arrillaga compound just north of the project area, the 193 acres likely represents both the project and the cumulative impact on the Buckeye Creek Watershed and on the culvert at Los Traneos Road. The project impervious surface represents 0,2 percent of the total wa+.ershed area, This is an insufficient coverage to alter the peak flow rates for ,significant floods, such as those ta’iggered by the lO-yr, and 100-yr, rainstorms. By extension, the proposed development in subwatershed 1 would represent a less-than- significant impact on the flood hazard on Buckeye Creek. 1 trtlst that this addresses the concerns raised by eommenters on the El.K. William B, Vandivere, P,E, Principal ATTACHMENT 12 E o E E ~E Correspondence and Written Comments Received on Revisions to Tentative Map 5-97 Town Hall and O~aees: 765 Portola Road, Po~tSJ~.V’A!lg.~’~ CA 94028 Tel; (415) 851-1700 Fax: (4t5) 851-~677 October 9, 1997 Mr, Paul Jensen Department of Planning and CommunitT Development City of Falo Alto Palo Alto, CA 9:303 Subject: Tentative Subdivision Map, Arrillaga, 94-SUB-5 Dear Mr. Jensen: This letter is in response to your referral of the referenced tentative map to the Town of Portola Valley for comment. It is written at tl3e direction of the Portola Valley Town Council. First, we find it difficult to provide complete comments at this time since we do not have the final EIR. In our letter of July 24, 1997, we raised a number of concerns that we hoped would be addressed in the final EIR. In addition, there were a number of mitigation measures included in the draft EIR that we found higb.ly desirable. We look forward to reviewing the .final EIR when available and forwarding any additional comments on Lhe tentative subdivision map at that time. We presume lhose conmaents would probably lhen - ’need to be addressed to the city council. With respect to the tentative map we would like to comment on the ~hanges that have been made ’co the map, some items that have come into focus on the revised map and reiterate a few important points we raised earlier. We have received two sets of plans which we will refer to as "A" and "B" as follows: "A" Pages 1-5, "Tentative Map" dated September 1997, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. "B" Pages 3,-15, :’Civil Notes" dated September 1997, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. 1.Los Trancos Road We note that the tentative map (B. p. 4) shows a right of way dedication of 60 feet. We also understand that the city council has approved the "Reasonable Maintenance Project" level of in~provements fob the road as set forth in the .city manager’s report of September 16, 1996: We would of course prefer that Palo Alto move toward the same standard that Portola Valley is using on the portions of Los Trancos Road within the town, that is, two 12 ft. lanes and two 2 ft paved shoulders. We do note, however, that the city manager’s report calls for the city to attempt to obtain a 60 ft right of way for the entire road portion within the city. Perhaps in time, the 28 ft standard can be achieved. With respect to possible future widening of the portion in t’alo Alto, please bear in mind that Portola Valley in approving the Blue Oaks subdivision, required the developer.to contribute 15% of the cost of improving the portion of LosTrancos Road in Palo Alt0, but not to exceed $105,000. Should Palo Alto seek to improve portions of Los Trancos Road, the Blue Oaks contribution could be called upon; however, the Mr. Paul Jensen, October 9, 1997 Page provision with respect to the Blue Oaks contribution requires that the funds be expended within five years or else they will revert to the subdivider. 2.Main Access Road The main access road appears to have numerous problems. The cross sections (A. page 4) indicate fills up to 40 fL in height (Station 12+50). Station 20+00 shows combined cut and fdl slopes of about 30 feet in height. The grading in general on page 4 of B. id of major proportions and will require removal of many trees and the creation of major scars. We suggest that retaining walls be employed to significantly reduce the heights of cuts and fi}Js. We note cut and fill slopes of 1.5 to 1. We believe normal standards would call for slopes no steeper than 2 to 1. Steeper slopes tend to be less stable and in particul~ very difficult to maintain. The draft EIR shows a large landslide near the entrance to the subdivision. It is urged that the applicant’s geologist recommend appropriate remedial actions with respect to all landslides and that the city retain an independent geologist to review that work. The report of the geologist should also evaluate the acceptability of the ]tots for septic ¯ tanks and drainfields. The road is shown on map set A as having grades up to 18 % which we understand exceeds the normal limit of 15% in Palo Alto. The design should be modified to meet the city standard (the same standard as followed by Por~ola Valley) of 15%. This might mean obtaining ar~ eas.ement from an adjoining property owner so that ~he road could start at a location more distant from Los Trancos Road. Ix~ addition, we note the proposed retention basin between lots 1 and 2 and its relation to the Lands of Strauss. Serious consideration should be given to potential realignment of the road so as to .avoid the necessity of the retention basin, which, should it ever fail, would discharge water on the Lands of Strauss. It appears preferable to follow the existing graded trail in the vicinity of lots 6, 7 and 8 which might-negate the need for the retention basin. 3.House Locations Shifting building sites off of the knolls on lots 1, 2, 5, and 6 will lessen .the visual impact on views from Portola Valley Ranch. We have a major concern, however, that Palo Alto have the conditions in place that will require that buildings be restricted to these locations. We urge that easements be placed on those portions of each lot that are not intended for buildings. The easements should provide for somewhat larger building sites than shown on the tentative map since more study w~ be needed to finally locate house sites and the time when sites are. to be developed. As it stands now, however, it would appear that for. the building sites shown there is absolutely no guarantee that houses will be located where shown. In addition, we urge that these limitations be i~cluded in the CC&R’s and deed restrictions. Mr. Paul Jensen, October 9,1997 ’Page 2 4.Cluster Desig~ ,5. We have further reviewed the eight lot clustered alternative included in the draft and urge changes in the tentative map to reflect this design. It has significant advantages in reducing visual impacts, disturbance of the natural environment and the amount of paving. Water Tank We note the addition of a water tank in the easterly portion of the ~ite. Ou.r study indicates that the tank might be visible from Portola Valley Ranch. We urge that the tank be of a color that will blend in with the setting, that it be notched into the hill if necessary to help hide the tank and that existing vegetation be augmented to help screen the tank if necessary. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and look forward to reviewing the final EIR when it is available. Si cereb,, ~ Planner. er, aI Town cc,Susan Whelan, Town Administrator Mr. Paul Jen.~en, October 9, 1997 Page Linda V. Elkind 14 Hawk View Portola Valley, 94028 October 8, 1997 Attention Mr. Paul Jensen City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 0[;T 0 8 1997 .~" p" r~ ....o - ~. ,.,,,, ~,~ Co,"nmun;~ Dear Mr. Jensen, Re: l~e,,’ised Tentative Map for 8-1or Los Trancos Road Subdiv.ision AP#182-46-010. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments and ask questions about the revised tentative map. Some of the concerns I raised in earlier comments have been partially addressed and to the extent that they reduce some of the impacts of the project I am encouraged. These include: 1. the reduction of single-family residential lot size. 2. the designation of one permanent open space parcel. 3. the relocation of building envelopes for lots #1, #2, #5 and #6. Concerns that I have raised in the past have not been addressed in the revised map. These are described in full in my comments o’n the DEIR but in su.mmary they include:’ ’ 1.A redesignof the project so that the building envelopes are mord tightly ’ clustered and the amount of impervious surface and driveway lengths are reduced. A designation and requirement that all development be contained within the building envelopes on each lot and that the visually sensitive knolls be protected from subsequent development i.e. pools, cabanas and other accessory structures. 3.That development restrictions be recorded on the map and in the legal descriptions and as deed restrictions. 4.That the building envelopes should be placed below the ridgelines on lots #3, #4 and #7 or on less visually intrusive locations. 5. Lot #8, as the lots are currently configured, will be visually intrusive from PVRanch as the whole lot is steep and much of it is open s~vale. Not only is the building envelope highly visible, but the long driveway across steep slopes will require large cuts and fills which will also be highly visible. There should be a study of several building envelope and driveway arrangements and accompanying visual analysis of the impacts of development on this lot to determine if visual, grading, runoff and leachfield construction impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. 6.Septic leach fields are indicated on excessively steep slopes on lots #8 and #1 near the drainage swale on lots #1 and #2. I have questions about the storm water drainage plans and recommend that alternative solutions should be found to mmgate the ~mpacts fro~ grading the ma~n access road. 1.Storm Water runoff. I do not see thgt ,rite Nap reflects a response to the detailed comments from the Santa Clara Wg/g. D,.j~tnct date~, i.~._’ 30, 1997 page 2. It does not appear that the detention I~ig-i~ the locatCt0’~ ~#wn.,.will detain" " sufficient runoff to justify the installation". Has the applicant recalculated the peak flow rates and designed sufficient mitigating capacity? 2.To what extent will runoff from the main access roads be retained on the land? 3.Are there plans for diffusers at the outlets of the access road storm drain outlets to reduce their erosive force on Los Trancos Creek? - 4. Page 3 item 11 in the SCVWD letter points out that the DEIR mitigation measure 5.3-7 for Cumulative Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation addresses construction sources of erosion at the project sites. However, the cumulative effect of development includes additional total quantity and peak volume of runoff. How has the design of the access road and emergency access roads mitigated this potential cause of additional erosion in the impacted creeks? 5.Please also note item #14 in the SCVWD letter. The engineer questions the postproject condition runoff and pollutant loading calculations. Have drainage and the road designs been revised to mitigate the corrected values implied by these comments? 6.Grading for construction of the main access road will require huge cuts and fills. At the hair pin turn these will be highly visible. Furthermore, slopes of 1.5 to 1 may be difficult to stabilize and their visual impacts hard to hide. Alternative grading solutions should be required, evaluated and considered There should be a study and report of the feasibility of landscaping and maintenance to assure that the grading impacts can be effectively mitigated. 7. As far as I can interpret the maps, the bulb of the main access road and also driveways to lots #3 & #4 are located across a swale which was filled ~vithout a permit. The DEIR suggests that the fill may not be adequate and proposes as mitigation that the applicant remove the illegal fill material before further development. Will this change the proposed map and road specifications? Please discuss this in the staff report. Sincerely, Linda Elkind 10 V~ey O~kStr~et, Por~o~aV~ey, CA 94028 Palo Alto Department of Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 October 7, 1997 Re: Proposed Map Revisions to Los Trancos Road Subdivision (Lands of Arrillaga) Dear Planners, At first glance, the revised subdivision map appears to be a small step in the right direction, but a closer look reveals that it is no more than a cosmetic revision: ¯The permanent private open space parcel simpiy aggregates all the property land that is unsuitable for building The relocation of four building sites, off the knoll tops, is meaningless as long as the building envelope for each lot is not precisely defined and recorded on the subdivision map The proposed map revision ignores all the requests for a tightly clustered design. The long driveways.(over 3,000 ft) and a new road are still spread over thehill top, and adding to thi.s maze is now the fire road to the water tank as well as a new water detention basin connected to a 800 ft ditch. After the public hearing on the Draft EIR and the unanimous recommendation by the Palo Alto Planning Commission to include a tightly clustered alternative in the EIR, we are shocked by the developer’s unwillingness to address the Commission’s and the public’s concerns. These proposed map revisions are so deficient that they leave us with the impression that the Palo Alto City planning staff is more concerned about avoiding any confrontation with Mr. Arrillaga than about satisfying the wishes of the City Planning Commission. Sincerely, Pierre & Diana Fischer October 6, 1997 1 INDIAN CROSSING PORTOLA VALLEY -;~a:;,a=,’,.’ - -...... CALIFORNIA, 94028 Ccmrnur,~6’ 415’851 1811 Attentior~ Mr. Paul Jensen City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Jensen, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised Tentative Subdivision Map for an 8-lot subdivision Los Trancos Road (Lands of Arrillaga, AP#182-46-010). It is our understanding that the revisions are intended to address and implement some of the mitigation measures in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and that you have invited comments on the revisions. Therefore, we have grouped our comments in three categories first, those which we believe will partially mitigate some of the impacts identified in the DEIR and second, comments which point out problems and impacts which have not been mitigated by the revised tentative map dated September 1997. We have a third category of questions which include questions for clarification. Revisions which address some, but not all, of the mitigation measures in the DEIR The maps shows i’educed lot size and the creation of Permanent Open space to be owned and maintained by the association; however, the amount of land in Open Space Easements falls below the average of 68% in adjacent developments in Portola Valley. The lot size no larger than 11.6 acres would prevent future subdivision under current standards. Impacts which have not been mitiEated by the revised tentative map dated September ’1997 1_Building envelopes on sites 3,4,7 and 8 are on visually prominent knolls and should, like lots 1,2,5 &6, also be placed at lower elevations so that the roof lines of all structures are below the ridgelines. Lot 8 is particularly prominent and steep. De~,elopment will be very visible. 2. The map does not show that the lots are conditioned to insure that all development be restricted to the building envelopes and that sensitive ridge lines and knolls will be free of development. Easements should be indicated on the map to delineate the sensitive portions which are not" appropriate for buildings or pools. The location of building sites and easements to protect i.,isually sensitive areas should be recorded on the map and in the legal description. 3. The main access road and al~o driveways, especially to lot 8, will require large amounts of grading and cuts and fills which will have severe visual impact. The grading at the hairpin turn will be especially visible. We question whether large and steep cut and fill slopes(1.5 to 1) can be maintained and’their ~visual impacts mitigated. Alternative grading solutions should be required. The DEIR should be revised to evaluate the relative feasibility of and effectiveness of proposed grading designs and associated mitigations. 4. All mitigation measures, including mitigations listed under 5.8-1, should be recorded on the map, the deed and in the legal description.. 5. The revised map fails to meet many of Palo Alto’s Open Space District Guidelines. The revised map does not cluster development into a smaller area. The revised map proiect has excessive amounts of impervious surface. The main access road exceeds Palo Alto’s standards for steepness. Questions: 1.What is the nature of the detention basin and access easement? How much tree removal, grading, and road construction is associated with the easement and the detention basin?. 2. The map does not show any trails. Will there be any and where? 3. From the map, we are not able to determine the visual impacts of the proposed water tank and access road. The revised tentative map and engineering drawings show that the visual impacts from grading of the access road and long steep driveways will be even more significant than was revealed in the DEIR. ’Therefore, we request. that the DEIR be amended to allow more public corrunent and further clarification of alternatives and the adequacy and feasibility.of; mitigations. Respect frilly submitted Elaine Kay President Portola Valley Ranch Association October 8, 1997 ’ City of Palo Alto PlanningDepartment 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, California 94201 Attention: Paul Jensen Subject: Los Trancos Road Subdivision Revised Tentative Subdivision Map Dear Paul: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised submittal. I have the following comments and questions on the revised proposal and the process for review and approval: 1. The relocated building sites on proposeO,,lots #1, #2, #5 and #6 are great improvements. It appears that the revised location of the building envelopes on¯\these lots will go a long way toward reducing their Visual impacts. 2. It is reassuring that the lot sizes have been reduced thereby minimizing the likelihood of further attempts at subdivisions. Itis also reassuring to know that the area dedicated for open space will remain open space for perpetuity.. 3. I would like clarification as to whether the building envelope on lot #2 has moved from being located within a wooded area to a clearing. If so, while the building site may be lower in elevation it may actually be more visible. I believe that some additional visual analysis comparing these revised building envelope locations to those in the initial proposal is necessary to ensure that the relocated building sites have not become more visible. 4. I continue to disagree with the conclusion of the DEIR that the building envelopes on lots #7 and #8 would not have significant visual impacts and that plantings would be enough to mitigate the visual effects of the buildings on the ridge and hillside. As with lots #1, #2, #5, and #6 these building sites are highly visible from public roads, public trails and public open spaces. I believe that additional siting measures are needed to insure mitigation of these impacts and to enable the Planning Commission and City Council to find that the subdivision is consisteht with the Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Development Criteria. 5. To ensure that future owners develop these lots consistent with the Tentative Map, I strongly recommend that the final building envelopes be recorded on the final map, in the legal description of the property, and on the deed. This is customary practice where there are potential adverse environmental impacts associated with development outside of the bui.lding envelope. I also recommend Los Trancos Road Subdivision Revised Submittal Comments October 8, 1997 Page 2 that all accessory structures be located within this building envelope so that future property owners do not build any structures in a location which has already been identified as having the potential for visual impacts. In addition, mitigation measure 5.8-1 should be recorded in the deed and legal description as the EIR will require that it apply to all future building which occurs on these parcels. 6. What change would there be in the amount of grading, cut and ~fill between the revised plan and the original proposal? The amount of grading; cut and fill at the hair pin turn in the access road is detailed in the construction, grading and drainage plans. These plans indicate significant expanses of cut and fill, up to 80 feet from the edge of the cut to the edge of the fill. Was this amount of cut and fill evaluated in the DEIR? The visual impacts indicated by these plans may be greater than depicted by the DEIR. 7. Please ensure that significant camouflage is required by the conditions of approval for the cut, fill, and retaining structures of the road. 8. Driveways to the building envelopes are shown on the Tentative Map. These should also be recorded with the map to ensure that all future owners know where grading, cut, fill and r.etaining for driveways is allowed. 9. All proposed easements, including pedestrian and equestrian trails, should be shown on the TSM and recorded with the final Map. 10. If I remember correctly, when you described the process for review and approval of the project you indicated that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council on the project. Did you say that the Planning Commission would not be revidwing the Final EIR? How can the Planning Commission make a recommendation on findings of approval if they cannot evaluate the significance of the impacts, the feasibility and extent of the mitigation measures nor how well thd mitigation measures will help bring the project into compliance with the City’s Plans and Policies? Tl~ank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised proposal and for your patience in answering questions and discussing the issues and process for this project. .sincerely, Terilynn Langsev-Burt 1 Wintercreek Portola Valley, CA 94028 (650) 851-9814 October 8, 1997 Paul Jertsen City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo A.lto, CA 94301 Committee for.Grin ~oothills Los Tmncos RoaSt Subdivision Tenative Subdivision Map Comments page 1 R~,, Los Trmacos Road Subdivision Revisions to Tenatve Subdivision Map Dear IV~r. }ensen, Commit-tee ~or Green Foofl~lls is pleased m see that the Tenative Subdivision Map is moving towards conformance with relevent Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions by reducing average lot size, moving building envelopes off of visable knolls, and dedicating 54% of the site as permanent open space. However, aside from the reduction of lot size, these changes and use restrictions have not been recorded on the Map and therefore come with no gam’antee that they will in fact be implemented. Committee. for Green Foothills recommends the following changes to the Tenatlve Map in orde.r to ensure that these improvements will be realized: I) Record building envelopes directly on the Map and require that all ancillary facilities be restricted to within this envelope. This will ensure that development. .will not occur on knolls and ridgelines and will help prevent unantidpated visable impacts (not analyzed in the EIR) from ancillary facilites like tennis courts, swimming pools, guest houses, etc.- 2) Record what the CC&Rs refers to as the "Common Area" as permanent open space on the Map and define use restrictions for this area both on the Tenative Map and in the CC&Rs. The primary purpose of this space should Mi?’th~ " preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and animals" as defined in the Draft Comprehensive Plan land use designation for " Publicly Owned Conservation Land. L-9. As this common area is technically an. open space easement held in perpetuity by the City of Palo Alto as a condition of approval, the common area would fall under this land use designation and lift uses and restrictions should be recorded on the Map. Impervious surface area development should be prohibited.2.2 of the CC& R.s discusses dedication of the. Committee for Green Foothi~ Los Trancos Road Subdividon Tenative Subdivision M~p Comments ¯. .p~ge 2 Comn~on Area. ~ section should include language that prohibits the Association from u_ndedicating the land or selling it to another party, f~ction 5.2 O of the CC&Rs discusses "Common Area Improvements" but does not identify what "improvements" are permissible. For example, it is unclear whether uses such as s~ables, tennis courts, swimming pools, gol/courses, ball fields, non- native landscaph’~g etc. would be permitted in the Common Area. Con’u’nittee for Green Foothills would be opposed to such uses in the designated Open space area and requests that they b~, spedfically prohibited. Because the project is essentially "piecemealed" into two distinct phases-the Tentative Map and the Site and Design Review-it is critical that impacts that can be anticipated and avoided during the first stage-the Tentative Map stage- should not be carried over to the second phase-the Site and Design Phase-when they will be almost certainly be more difficult to mitigate Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Si~ncerely, - .... Camas Hubenthal Legislative Advocate To: Paul Ellen Cbxistensen 4217 Los Palos Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: H- 494-1356; W-723-3249 FAX: 725-0605 EMAIL: luce~lzland.sta~ford.edu P.E; Adllaga Tentative Map Commr.nts of the CC&R’s: I) Common Area - Page 4 2.2 C Parking should not b¢ an glowed use in the Private Op~ Space common area. (See also 7,11 page 22 reference to parking as a us of the Common Area) 2) Private Open Space, Parcel A- Lot 6- Page 6 This parcel is d~signed to provide access f~m Lot 9 (Common Private Open Space) to Public lands (that A_rillaga is using as stone cuttingT), It appears to be an area subject to landsliding and should not be used for access f~om new subdivision to lands below, 3) Partition of the Con’~on Area: Is the provision on page 7 allowi,,g subdivision of the common open space a loophole that circttmvents ~e city’s intention to provent furthex subdivision? 4) Common Area Improvements- page 17. What are these allowed to be (particularly in the Op~,n Space common ar~a)? 5) Architectural Control - There is a discussion in this section of the homes as a "project." (6.1 A "During th priod of initial sales,," 7.1 Use of Lot: "..exert that deolarant ..may use the Project for a model home site or sites, and display ~d sal~siconst~ucrion office,.") If these we not to be developed as individual lots, then not only are the homes subject to site and design control, but the project must go httrough AIL8 approval. Comments on the 1) A!l development, including accessory structures should be within the designated buildiag sites. 2) Is fl~e rea~ right ofway for Ti~-r~a A.rboles proposed to be 42 fcct wide? On the map il appears a~ though this entire 42 foot area is proposed for grading. This is entir©ly too much grading and resultant loss of trees for this road way, Need more information about the proposed Storm bVatex DztentJon Facility? Is this 4) The drainage easement looks like a road. (’It looks the same on the map as Trapper Teal! em~[gency access mad.) -What is this propos~1 to be, how constructed 5) Emergency Access Rozd - .’fhis road coming up from Los Tranco.~ Roa~l is aLready-a disaster. It should newt have begn cm and should have been abandoned and restored to natural terrain years ago, It is a terrible eandictat¢ for an emergency access road as the hillside is subject to failure from landslides for practically the whole length of the road to the top of the hill. mair. emergency access road to this project should be Trapper Trail Road. Through the developed parcels use the existing graded road rathe.~ than the ne, w Tierra A.robles Road. The new road appear~ to end in the illegally/~11~ area of the site and in an awk’ward aligral~cm. The illegal fill, in any event, neeAs to be removed s]nze there is no way to ascer~dn that it was properly engineered. 7) There continue to be problems with ~he lotting pattern and some of the building sites. Lot 8 in particular proposes to locate the leachfield in area that appears to have a 20% slope and requires an excessively long driveway. Perhaps there should be no homesit¢ in this location. It is not possible to ascertain the impact oft.he now building site for lot 5 on ",.he loss of trees. S) Ther~ is still a ~lear advantage environmentally to requiring grca:~r clustering ~ound the exisrlng road through the developed area in order to reduce the impacts of long driveways, building sites, ar, d the new ~oad on habitat and ~’isual resources. 9) Comment on the gradLng pla.n:. What is to be the fate of the Haybale erosion control "fixturss?" Are those staying in place? 10) As suggesled by the EIR, all trees should be located on the final map. November 5, 1997 From:Ellen Christensen 4217 Los Palos Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 494-1356 RE: A..nSllag~t/Los Trancos Road Subdivision I have m’o general comments and then some specific comments I would like to make. First, there are a number o~natural habitat and geologic hazard concerns around the siring of the access roads mad water tank. I would encourage you co make a site visit before actually acting on the map issues before you. I think it is hard to make recommendations on the road access and siting issues without seeing the proposed locations end potential impacts. If you do adopt the staff recommendations today, I would suggest that your second review of this map - at the final map stage- will be especially critical, because resolution of many of the serious impacts oft his development is being left to that final map stage, i.e. additional investigation and remediation measures for slope stabilization of the access roads, a final, detailed water study to confirm the water tank size, a derailed tree replanting plan, the issue of % of impervious surface, etc. Specific Comments: 1) Proposed impervious surface exceeds 3.5% of sire. The comment on page 10 says that "projec~ engineer has indicated that it is the intent to adjust these amounts so that they are in compliance with the ordinance limits." The project should comply with the city requirements and the map should reflect that compliance. Impervious surface should not be left to the intent of the project engineer. 2) Emergency Access Road: I am particularly concerned with the emergency access road which, as proposed, goes through several significant landslide hazard ar~as. In addition to investigating remedimion measures for this road in its staffproposed location, the alternative of using the Trapper Trail fire road into Foothill Park should be investigated. The current emergency access road [even with staff proposed partial realignment] is a mess- the slopes are already slumping (and severely) in some locations. 3) Water Tank: According to the staff report, seven "protected" trees will be destroyed by placement of the water t~.k, The report on page I7 suggests that it may be possible to build a significantly smaller tank. The smallest feasible tank is what should be constructed, both to minimize the damage to the habitat and to discourage future intensification of use of the parcel, Additionally, screening of the lard< should take the form of more that just partial burial and an earth tone paint. Seven trees should be replanted in the vicinity to mediate the loss oft.he those NOV,5,199,"i" 6: 04PII SU AHTHROPOLOGY I’iO, 63’T P. destroyed, ancl the tank itself should be screened with shrubbery to the extent feasible, consistent with access and safety requirements. 4) Storm ~,~’ater run-off: After cons~:u¢l~ion, and even with the proposed realignment of the main access road and elimination of the storm water retention basin, there should be some deflector System tJmt deals with storm.water runoff, so tha~ it is not flowing directly inzo L.os Tr~ncos Creek. November 5, 1997 Architectural Review Board Cil3." of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 re: Proposed Los Trancos Subdivision Dear Members of the ARB: You are about to review aspects of the largest construction project in over 20 years in the Palo Alto open space area. Some people estimate the value of the project at $70 million. This valuation is an indication of the care needed in your analysis and recommendations. The large environmental significance of modifyi. ’ng this parcel is even more important in indicating the need for a very thorough review; the parcel is important and unique because it has been PRESERVED IN ITS NATURAL STATE TOO AT LEAST THE SAME DEGREE AS STANFORD’S JASPER RIDGE PRESERVE. Your mandate is not environmental review except as it applies to your particular concerns. The pristine nature of this acreage will obviously affect your analysis in many ways and will require your spending more time than usual to read and ’ understand the issues. This 151 acre preserve truly merits the extra attention that it takes to read through the large number of pages in the EIR and other material. This ’is a project so large that it is ve.ry difficult for one person to read and understand all of it -- especially if one has not spent a good mount of time walking in the area. The Department of Planning and Community Environment, the project management, and the staffhave done an excellent job, given the constraints (an area never studied because it is a de-facto, private preserve and because of the usual limited funding). Matching this effort has been the voluntary work of a large group of private citizens who have contributed hundreds of hours of their time, .not to mention their own knowledge acquired over 15, 25, 50 years of first-hand observation. These people are locally expert; they have been there every year, in all manner of environmental conditions. I hope that you understand that the local people serve as a check on the professional’s calculations, and vice-versa. Every development in the Palo Alto foothills is affected by the foresight and work of the Lee family. By transferring the land that is Foothills Park to the City of Palo Alto, instead of constructing a hugely profitable subdivision, the Lee family acted, and their act was the beginning of all the open space preserves in the Bay Area. The project that you are reviewing is formerly Lee property. The parcel adjoins Foothills Park. It is in a much more natural state, has a richer biotic resource component than the park because it is undeveloped private property.. This implies that your review can lead to changes in an area much larger than just the site itself. My comment of Aug. 13, available in the "Response to Comments (FEIR)" is a very. brief explanation of the parcel’s significance. I assume that you have received information concerning the recent changes to the hydrologic state of sub-watersheds 1 and 2, as well as Buckeye Creek. I won’t duplicate the comments of those who showed me the evidence of these changes. I suggest postponing your recommendations ffyou are not completely sure of this information and the obvious implication that runoff from the proposed subdivision roadways and other impermeable areas will have a much larger impact than is postulated in the FEIR. Evaluation of the runoff effects will need to be recalculated ff these geologic/hydrologic changes haven’t been considered. This new condition came as a surprise to me, though I have heard (very audibly), the increase in the flow from Buckeye Creek into Los Trancos Creek. I have taken pictures of standing water and saturated soil along the access roads bordering the Buckeye Creek. Exacerbating the acknowledged flooding of roads in close proximity to the creek would cause people to lose access from their current homes to Los Trancos Rd. I don’t wish to debate the differences in the approval procedures between Palo Alto and the neighboring responsible entities, all of whom have more experience in regulating recent development efforts. However, I believe that it is in the best interests of the City of Palo Alto for you to recommend that the general public be guaranteed access or input to the changes in the Tentative Map. There seems to be more changes, at each hearing; it seems extremely likely that changes to the EIR will continue. Your recommendation to allow the same welcomeness to express their own views to the citizens would appear to be obligatory. In the same vein, I suggest that you initiate a recommendation to incorporate sanctions to be imposed if the FUTURE CHANGES to the project are not fulfilled or are violated. I am unsure that the monitoring program would still be in effect ff construction hadn’t been initiated after five years. The size of the project should allow ~ou to postpone your recommendations if you aren’t sure that everything is considered properly. Especially, the continual changes in the plans so far imply that they will continue. If the recommendations don’t account for public, as well as governmental, review in the future (in perpetuity), you are allowing the ci.ty to be locked in to the desires of a single person. There is nothing that prevents you from recommending that the requested exemptions not be granted. That route is a viable option, particularly when coupled with allowances on the owner’s adjacent proper~/. Respectfully Yours, John Baca P.O. Box 8527 Stanford, CA 94309-8527 415/473-0996 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, California 94201 November 5, 1997 Subject: Los Trancos Road Subdivision Dear Architectural Review Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item. I live in Portola Valley and am a neighbor of the Arrillaga Land Subdivision. I have been following the development review process and tracking the various proposals and alternatives which have been submitted, revised, and studied. The Staff report to the Architectural Review Board recommends that your Board recommend conditional approval of certain improvements related to the Subdivision. The improvements correspond to a revised alternative which the Staff has put forward because of its ability to mitigate some impacts associated with the project. I understand the basis for the Staff proposed alternative but I do not agree with the proposed locations of the residential building pads associated with this alternative. The Staff proposed alternative would locate all but one of the homes in what is now an open meadow. The proposed building locations would be visible from many locations and distances. There would be very little visual open space left on top of the property where the grass lands are currently. I believe that the cluster alternative which was studied in the Response to Comments of the Environmental Impact Report is a better design solution for the property. In this alternative, most of the homes would be screened by existing natural vegetation. The open grass lands, for the most part, would maintain the appearance of open undeveloped property. The location of the building sites in the cluster alternative is visually far superior than the one put forward by staff because it would be consistent with the City’s Open Space Development Criteria which state that development "should be sited so that it is hidden from view as much as possible." Also, this alternative would be consistent with the sections of the Open Space Development Criteria which state that "development should be concentrated" and that vegetation "should appear natural from a distance". The cluster alternative studied in the -Response to Comments of the EIR would provide screening from natural vegetation as opposed to screening from introduced planting which would be required with the Staff proposed .alternative. I support the Architectural Review Board’s approval of the improvements as recommended by Staff as long as this approval does not preclude the possible future approval of the location of building sites consistent with the 8 lot cluster alternative studied in the Response to Comments of the EIR. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Terilynn Langsev-Burt 1Wintercreek Portola ValleY, California 94028 111~197 Architectural Review Board Cit3’ of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 re: Proposed Los Trancos Subdivision Dear Members of the ARB: The Department of Planning and Community Environment has done an excellent job analyzing the Arrillaga proposal, and producing the draft EIR despite lacking firm project details. We wish to bring to your attention an item that was not considered in the EIR -- the hydrologic changes at the intersection of Los Trancos Rd. and Buckeye Creek (LOs Trancos Creek - South Branch). Since approximately 1989, there has been an extremely large increase in the volume of standing water adjacent to LOs Trancos Rd. This is especially true in the area known as the "Lee Common Area" bordering the proposed subdivision, The flooding in the Lee Common Area is substantial, and the principal neighborhood access road runs through this area. It is possible that the proposed Arrillaga project will aggravate the already substantial flooding present in the Los Trancos Creek South/Lee Common Area, and may adversely affect the Los Trancos Creek watershed. In light of this, I ask that the Lee Common Area be included in the analysis required for the applicable EIR. Sincerely, Amy Amy W. Lee 620 Los Traneos Road Portola Valley, CA 94028" 650-851-4487 650-851-9736 fax R~CEIVED tYOV 1 o 1997 Depar~rnem or ~-~a~, ~,,]q and Community Environment 20 Coyote Hill Portola Valley, CA 94028 November 7, 1997 Department of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 9430& : Subject:Response to the Environmental Impact Report for the Arrillaga property Dear Sir/Madam: Thank you for forwarding this report to me. It represents thorough responses to the comments on the DEIR, ,and Contains an Alternative Variation of the 8-1or clustered plan which would place the homes on the eastern side of the hilltop and reduce the visual impact on the west side of the property. My home is located on the other side of Portola Valley Ranch, so I am not personally affected. However, I love to hike and walk on the valley trails and truly believe that the regional impact of this subdivision on the larger Peninsula community will be great for all those who use and enjoy the trails in Foothill Park, Windy Hill, Coalmine Ridge and Skyline. I urge you to give serious consideration to the Alternative Variation of the 8 lot subdivision. Regardless of how one views the Portola Valley Ranch development, one thing is certain: The sole use of native trees, principally oaks, leaving the grasslands undisturbed, has made this subdivision blend into the natural scene as nothing else could I urge you to restrict the planting list on the Arillaga property to those native plants and trees found on the surrounding hillsides. This saves water, human energy, avoids fertilizers, saves wildlife habitat, and preserves the natural scene. Marilyn J. (I serve on County’s Trail ~lley’s Conservation Committee, and San Mateo Committee.) vember 12, 1997 Palo Alto Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: FEIR and Tentative Map - Los Trancos Road. Eight Lot Subdivision, File #s: 94- EIA-31, 94-Sub-5 and 97-ARB-1 90 Dear Commissioners: This development has the potential to permanently scar a pristine property immediately adjacent to Foothills Park and which is an integral part of a region-wide open space area. Our concerns are with the visual impacts of the development, not only on nearby homes, but also impacts to Foothills Park and other public lands. We also wish to preserve the natural state of the property to the maximum extent possible. We believe that the Palo Alto approval process should attempt to impose the natural landscape on the development, rather than to allow the development to be imposed on this terrain. Therefore, we are asking the Palo Alto Planning Commission and the City Council to insure that the proposed development will alter as little of this site as possible. To that end we offer the following suggestions. 1. The ARB endorsed, and the developer’s representative agreed, that the access road should follow the route of the existing fire road reducing the need for cut and fill and allowing for closer clustering near the end of the cul-de-sac. This would also obviate the need for the storm drainage basin. The FEIR offers a new 8- unit cluster alternative referred to in the Staff Report as "Alternative 5" or the 8 lot cluster variation. This option significantly reduces the visual impact of the proposed development both to neighbors and to public lands. The effect of this option on open space as stated in the FEIR is that it would "... create approximately 136 acres of open space with binding restrictions on future development, outside of the 8 lots." Although this alternative would potentially require the removal of more trees, the number and location of any such trees is unknown and unquantifiable at this time since the building envelopes have not been finally defined. Wf~ believe that the number of additional trees to be removed could be adequately managed through the Site and Design Review process and we believe the known opportunity to preserve of an additional 54 acres in permanent open space outweighs the resulting removal of an unknown number of trees. The Staff Report states that the 8 lot cluster described in Attachment 4 is environmentally superior, however, that statement ignores the advantages of preserving an additional 54 acres of permanent open space. We urge you to support the new FEIR alternative. 2. Tighter clustering would also reduce the amount of impervious surface which - currently exceeds Palo Alto’s standard by allowing for shorter driveways. However, the real control will need to be exercised at the time of Site and Design Review to insure that parking areas, tennis courts "and ancillary structures are only allowed as permitted by the Palo Alto standards. Any reduction below the maximum allowable would be beneficial to the land. 3. ’ The developer has proposed in the Tentative Map a private open space easement on 81 acres. By reducing the size of the lots even further as suggested in the new FEIR alternative this number would be increased to. 136 acres. Preserving this land in permanent open space would also prevent any further scarring of the hills, and would protect wildlife corridorsand more of the native flora. We fully concur with the FEIR which states, "It should be noted that restrictions on open space and provisions for recording building envelopes could be imposed by the City as part of the review of the merits of the project." 4. The staff recommendation to the ARB had several suggestions to reduce the amount of cut and fill required and to reduce the number of trees to be removed to build the access road. We support the.se changes and encourage any additional changes which would reduce the amount of cut and fill allowed and which would reduce the number of trees to be removed. We also encourage native plantings which would conceal the cut, fill and retaining walls from view by neighboring public and private properties. These recommendations should be made a condition to the approval of the Tentative Map. 5. We als0 concur with the ARB recommendation that the water tank be minimized to the smallest size necessary to meet the needs of the development and that it be partially buried to reduce its visual ~mpact. 6. For the protection of the development Palo Alto should contract with the Woodside Fire Protection District for fire and emergency response services. Although the FEIR continues to insist, naively we believe, that the response time from the Hanover station can be within 15 minutes, why risk such a long response time when the Woodside station at Alpine Rd. and Portola Rd. is able to respond in 3 to 5 minutes. In the case of a wildfire, this would increase the chances of saving the development, Foothills Park and neighboring lands. We wish to commend the staff, especially Paul Jensen, for the excellent work which is represented in the various ideas presented as staff recommendations. We also wish to thank the members of the ARB and the Planning Commission for their conscientious attention to the concerns and requests of your neighbors in Portola Valley. Very truly yours Ted and Nancy Vian 2 Sunhill Portola Valley, CA 94028 FLEXIAN BROS HOSPITAL 729 2878 P.02/02 \ TOTAL P. 02 November i0, 1997 I " 1997 Palo Alto Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Arrillaga Subdivision Gentlemen: Please approve the "variation of the8-1ot clustered alternative" that locates all 8 home sites on the eastern side of the hilltop for the Arrillaga Subdivision. Sincerely, Ron Wilson 45 Bear Paw Portola Valley, CA 94028 City of Palo Alto Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, California 94201 November 12, 1997 Subject: Los Trancos Road Subdivision Dear Commissioners: I am a resident of Portola Valley arid formerly the Principal Planner for the City of Santa Barbara. I am not opposed to the project nor to the density proposed. I appreciate the project applicant’s willingness to propose a reasonable number of units, when more units may have been possible under zoning. I have been following the development review process and tracking the various proposals and alternatives which have been submitted, revised and studied. I appreciate the time and effort that Staff has put into the analysis of this project and Staff’s willingness to discuss the project with the interested public. In the recommendation and in the conditions the Staff has done an excellent job of responding to the many issues that have been raised and the significant amount of input that has been given. The Staff report recommends that your Commission recommend approval of a revised alternative to the City Council. This alternative corresponds to the 8 Lot Clustered Alternative in the Environmental Impact Report. The Staff recommends this alternative because of its ability to mitigate some of the impacts associated with the project. I understand the reasons why Staff has made this recommendation and I agree with the proposed road alignment and the thorough list of conditions of approval recommended. However, I do not agree with the proposed location of the building sites associated with the Staff recommended alternative. While this alternative would avoid the removal of some trees, the Staff recommended alternative would locate all but one of the homes in what is now an open meadow. The proposed building locations would result in homes which would be clearly visible from highly used regional open spaces and public areas. There would be very little open space remaining on top of the property where the grass lands are currently. Attempts to screen these homes would be made with introduced plantings, which would never fully screen the development nor appear as natural as the native vegetation. In contrast, the 8 Lot Clustered Variatior~ Alternative which was studied in the FEIR/Response to Comments presents a better design solution for the property. In this alternative, most of the homes would be screened by natural vegetation and the open grass land, for the most part, would be maintained. The property would retain the appearance of open undeveloped land as viewed from other regional open spaces such as Windy Hill Preserve, Coal Mine Ridge, Arastradero Open Space and Foothills Park. In this alternative, existing natural vegetation would screen future buildings. The 8 Lot Clustered Variation Alternative would require the removal of some trees. This property contains vast expanses of wooded areas with literally hundreds of trees. The number of trees which may be removed for development of the 8 Lot ~ Clustered Variation Alternative has. not been defined. However, when compared to the total number of trees Los Trancos Road Subdivision Planning Commission Hearing November 12, 1997 Page 2 on the property or the amount of coverage, the number of trees which may be removed is very small in both real numbers as well as a percentage of the total number of trees. In addition, all trees removed for either the road or home sites are required to be replaced according to the City’s Municipal Code. The relatively small loss of trees would be off set by the preservation of an appearance of undeveloped property which would remainin perpetuity. Because The 8 Lot Clustered Variation Alternative has the appearance of. the least amount of development of. any alternative, it goes the furthest toward meeting the City’s Open Space Ordinance and Open Space Development Criteria which state: ¯ "The existing natural vegetation and land formations shall remain in a natural state..."’ ¯ "All divisions of land into four or more parcels shall be designed on the cluster principle..." ¯Development should be located "in less rather than more conspicuous areas" ¯"Development...should be sited so that it is hidden from view as much as possibl.e" ¯ "Development should be concentrated...and vegetation should appear natural from a distance" The Final EIR states that the overall impacts between the 8 Lot Clustered Alternative and this Variant are roughly equivalent. The Staff report acknowledges that The Planning Commission and City Council must balance the benefits of the project against its impacts. As with any large project, especially one in such a prominent location, there are trade offs which must be made by decision makers. As decision makers for the City of Palo Alto you have a rare and unique opportunity. With the 8 Lot Clustered Variation Alternative you have the opportunity to approve .a project which meets the objectives of the developer to provide 8 spectacular hill top. building sites and, at the same time, to approve a project on a significant property which would maintain the appearance of open space for the long term as viewed from other public regional open spaces in the area. I urge you to recommend approval of the 8 Lot Cluster Variation Alternative to the City Council. Sincerely, Terilyrm Langsev-Burt 1 Wintercreek Portola Valley, California 94028