HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-15 City Council (30)City of
City Manager’s port
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
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 Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was adequately prepared
and b) the FEIR respond to all comments on the DEIIL 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 fmdings,
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
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 findings 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 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 gtaff 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.
o 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 also proposed, which follows the
alignment of an existing, graded fire road.
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
FEIPUResponse 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
Commission 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 Planning Commission found that the required fmdings 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:
ao A finding that the project is consistent with the policies and programs of the
Comprehensive Plan and
CMR:496:97 Page 3 of 14
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 amount of open space that is a) consistent with the
needs of the residents and b) economically feasible. The Planning
Commission found that the subdivisio~ 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 theproject would be consistent with Policy 11, as it would result in
54 percentof the site being protected in permanent open space, the Commission did
not agree that this was the maximum amount of open 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
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/CommonArea 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 fight clustering pattern, as required by the OS
(Open Space) District. The Plannin." g 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 Alternative 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 findings 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 further 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 heating 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
recommended 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 findings 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.
o
o
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 would reduce 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
conditionsof 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.staffrecommendations 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 necessary
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 visibifity 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).
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).
do 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 proposedproject 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 FEIR/Response 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), Alternative 3 (8-lot clustered) and Alternative 5 (8-lot
clustered variation) equally represent the environmentally superior alternative. While
Altemative 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 Planning
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, finding 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 Attachrnents5A 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 heating on the adequacy of the DEIR. Following review of the DEIR, the
Planning Commission recommended that staff proceed with the preparation of a Final
EIR/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. This 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 Zoning Ordinance, Article 14, Section 6). Consistent
with these provisions, this alternative 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 tracldng 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 fo~ 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 impa~t 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.
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 enviromnental 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 findings 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 PAMC Sections 21.20.210 and 21.28.020 (Subdivision Ordinance), 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 recordafion with the County of Santa Clara. Some of
the components of the Subdivision Improvement Plans (final 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 ofFish 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 7:Table comparing the proposed subdivision with neighboring
developments (existing and approved).
Attachment 8: Arbofist Report/Tree Inventory
Attachment g: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]
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. Attn: 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 Valleyl
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
PF(D)
PF
.os Trancos Road, south of Alpine I~oad
(APN#: 182-46-010)
PF
ITo Skyline Blvd I
FOOTHILLS PARK
Graphic Attachment Date: July 30, 1997
to Staff Report File #: 97-SUB-5; 97-EIA-31
Scale: 1 inch=1500 FT
ATTACHMENT 1A
Initial Tentative Map Map Layout and Design
(as initially filed in 1994)
1 inch = 450 feet
Roa~ \
Pro ~ed Water Tank
Proposed Private Open SpacelCommon Area /
ATTACHMENT 1R
Revised Tentative Map Map Layout and Design
(filed September 1997)
N
1 inch - 450 feet
:::2
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
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
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
RECEIVED
N 0V 2 6 1997
DEP,~d=rrMENT OF PLANNIN(~
AND COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Jensen:
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 DISTRICTS HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
SII"E DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARKS SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND INSPECTION 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.
SamJ. Zullokt ~ I ’-"
rnjt
enclosures
copy:John Arrillaga, Peery & Arrillaga
Anthony Guzzardo, Guzzardo & Associates
Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto
<0
0
<
Z
0
<
ATTACHMENT 1E
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE 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.The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds~ determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Sam Zullo, 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 PaloAltoMunicipal Code Subdivision
Ordinance, Architectural 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 on file 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
971208 la~ 0080617
1
November 6; 1997. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing, on the Project on November 12, 1997.
D. The City Counci!, 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 Significant 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 1~ 00~0617
2
Bo Geology and Soils
Impact 5.2-1 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 can 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 6r roosting birds, reduce construction dust, visual
mitigations°
Impact 5.2-3 concerns unstable slopes that could affect
access roads, building areas, and create erosion. 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 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 roadways and 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
971208 |~ 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~ Hydrology, Drainage, 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 existinq 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
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.
Impact 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
5
971208 iac 0080617
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
day°
E. Traffic and On-Site Circulation
Impact 5.5-3 concerns project access and internal
circulat±on. 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
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 long portion of the roadway. The
emergency access road should be revised to a maximum grade of 15
percent, and aligned to avoid tree 10ss. Driveway grades should be
no more than 15 percent. For Emergency Access Road, provide
turnouts, widen in areas when possible given physica! 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 la~ 0080617
6
Fo 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 landscaping may 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.
971208 la~ 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 calls° 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 all 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.
971208 iac 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 measure implemented
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 Impacts
Impact 5.8-1 concerns the view from the Hewlett
Subdivision. The form and line of the homes on Lots 1 and 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 plants.
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 Site and 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 and
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
971208 1~ 0080617
9
less-than-significant impact by the following mitigation as a
condition of Site and Design approval: Implement Mitigation
Measure 5.8-1. 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 Tentative Map 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
Miti~a.~d. 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
971208 ia~ 0080617
10
according to Section 21081 (a) (3) . Accordingly, the impacts
sunm~rized below remain unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project°
A. Biotic Resources
Impact 5.6-12 concerns cumulative tree loss.
Implementation of theproject, 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 5o6-13 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 consez-vation. 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: 0n-site staging and storage of
construction equipment and materials shall be minimized to reduce
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 sor~ 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 theProject, 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:
A. 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 1,244 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.
971208 !~ 0080617
12
This alternative is not desirable for the City because of
much greater environmental 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.
Co 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 6.3-1 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 bio!ogical 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 basedon 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:
971208 iac: 0080617
14
A. The Project will provide a total of eight needed new
housing units within the City, and in-lieu Below Marke~ 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 Palo Alto,
resulting in many persons employed in the City living outside the
Cityl 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 in the City.
C. The 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 conclusions, 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.
971208 la~ 0080617
15
(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 fire 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 scoping process with "no" responses
on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained in Section 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 in the Final EIR and in the record
of proceedings on the Project.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
971208 iac 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
971208 la~ 0080617
17
ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map (94-SUB-5) &
Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Section 21.20.210 and 21.28.020
Draft
l.
Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map
As amended by recommended map revisions rccc,,’-~,’~c,’~dcd 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 space parcel of 81+ acres, 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 design and layout modifications,
would be consistent with Policy 4 --~ n~,:~..,,~,~ ~ ,~,,~: ~ I of the Open Space Element in
that, the proposed improvements, specifically the building envelope areas, would
be relocated to protect scenic areas ,,.~,. ~,s,~,~,,.,~l, ~,,~,,,~,, ,~ ,,,~ ~,,~ 13 ~,, ~,~,,~o,.~,
f~r pcr~,,a~’~cr, t c~pcn ~pacc. While many of the recommended building envelopes
would be in areas of open grassland, the recommended locations are appropriate in
that a) adequate clustering can be achieved, b) the open area provides gentle
topography (for minimizing grading and earthmovement) and c) the location
would minimize impacts to mature trees and oak woodland areas, which are an
important part of the site’s scenic resources. Additionally, the project, as
recommended, would be consistent with Policy 11 of the Open Space Element,
which encourages residential developments to provide the maximum amount of
open space, in that, the subdivision would not only preserve 81+ acres for
permanent open space but would reqUire that a building envelope be recorded for
each residential lot, thus limiting most of the land area for each lot for "passive
recreation/private open space" use; this combination would result in protection of
over 90% of the site in 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).
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 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
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 i~ 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,
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-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.
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 Pal, 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
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 fn’e 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
10.
ll. "
12.
subdivision. Specifically, additional revisions recommended for the main access road
would ensure that on-street parking turn-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.
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.,
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
Planning Commission Findings for Denial of the Tentative Subdivision Map
(94-SUB-5)
Draft
1.
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 trait 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 in that,
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.
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 septic/leachfield 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 from public right-of-
ways. Modifications necessary to the layout of the subdivision in order to achieve
tighter clustering of development and provide maximum protection of scenic areas
would not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent lands or public
easements.
PCfndgs.lst
2-2
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Tentative Map and Architectural Review Conditions
Revised Per Planning Commission Comments of November 12, 1997
for 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 r_~_t.:^_11 ...........~~,,~1,1,~,,,1~ w,~o,~-~,~,~ 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.
d. Redesign the grading of the main access road at the "hair-pin" turn so that
3-1
f.
No
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 Lots # 1 and #2) and off-
site slope 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 surplus acreage applied to lot #9 (private open
space/common area).
Individual building envelopes for lots #1-8 shall be identified on the revised
Tentative 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
3-2
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
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
ghall 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 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 confined 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 thatstates: "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
3-3
do
eo
measures of the Los Trancos Road Subdivision Final EIR, both on-file with
the City of Palo 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 lot #5 shall include a provision/note that this lot is
located in a heavily vegetated area, containing "protected trees" as defined
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
and layout of the map, as required by condition # 1, 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 final 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
3-4
o
do
eo
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 t~ load-
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. wlt,l, rcvicw 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 PAtvlC 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 ofl0ts #1 and #8. The lot #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
3-5
proposed building envelope and leachfield 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)
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 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.
3-6
do 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 fines 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 final
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 defined 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 fines 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.
3-7
g0 Avoidance of attaching (nailing, posting) signs, wires or other construction
apparatus to any tree.
Me~;ures for tree trimming that is necessary for grading and/or construction
clearance.
o 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. A
total of four parking 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).
c.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 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. 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 approved, 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
3-8
12.
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 l~tter to John Arrillaga, 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 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 fined.-
d.Provide edge markers in the ~’0rm of thermoplastic striping, reflective
pavement markers and shoulder delineators.
13,.
14.
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 allthe 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.
15.If a gate is proposed at the entrance of the main access road, a "knox-box" shall be
3-9
16.
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 fire 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 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 building 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 pervi0us/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.
17.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 fiow rates
shall be furnished to the City.
3-10
The final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & Rs) shall include
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.
19.
A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical
engineer and engineering geologist, which shall include a slope stability analysis
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
3-11
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 mRigation measures from the monitoring
plan/program:
1) Measure 5.2-1, additional studies/requirements for slope stabilization
on lot #6.
2)Measure 5.2-2, requirements for erosion/sediment control, dust
control measures and tree replacement for tree removal.
3)Measure 5.2-3, requirement for site/lot-specific geotechnical
evaluation at the time of Site and Design Review.
4)Measure 5.2-4, requirement to incorporate rockfall hazard measures.
5)Measure 5.2-5, requirement for site/lot-specific plasticity analysis at
time of Site and Design Review.
6)Measure 5.2-6, provide earthen and mechanical retaining wall design
for each lot, if required. _
7) Measure 5.2-7, requirement for design compliance with Uniform
building Code (UBC) standards.
8)Measure 5.4-1, requirements for controlling dust and earthmovement
during construction.
9)Measure 5.5-3(b), requirement that private driveways for each lot not
exceed slope grades of 15%.
10)Measure 5.5-3(d), requirement for each lot to provide a minimum of
six on-site parking spaces.
11)Measure 5.5-5, requirements for private driveways to properly align
with main access road (for sight distance).
12). 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.
13) Measure 5.6-7, requirement for installation of erosion control
3-12
do
measures during construction on each lot.
14)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.
15)Measure 5.6-9, requirement to an ornithologist to conduct nesting
surveys prior to construction on each lot.
16)Measure 5.6-10, requii~ement for site design to comply with a list of
acceptable plant species for landscaping on each lot.
17)Measure 5.7-4(c), requirement that each residential structure be
designed with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
18)Measure 5.7-4(e), requirement to implement a fuel modification zone
around each home.
19).Measures 5.7-4(d) and 5.7-5, requirements for fire protection
measures during construction on each lot.
20)Measure 5.7-11, requirement for recycling of building materials
during construction.
21)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.
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 final 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 final 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
3-13
21.
22.
f.
go
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
and emergency access.
The final CC & Rs shall be amended to eliminate reference to the on-site
storm water detention basin.
Requirements and provisions for th~ 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 ofregraded and revegetated areas, annual report to the
City for the first five years of. completed subdivision improvements.
3)Implementation and monitoring the Fuel Modification Plan, annual
reports to the City (Fire Department).
The final 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.
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 offish 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.
3-14
23.
24.
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
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 ofFish 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
3-15
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 plaias and
documents to address utility service:
a. Improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size
and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service
r~equirements 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
the Utilities Engineering Division.
c.A complete WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION
APPLICATION o 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 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.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).
29. In accordance with City Council approval of the "Minor Operational
3-16
30.
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
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 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 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 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
3-17
et away from drainageways and creeks,
34.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.
35.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 ofFish 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 fines
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
3-18
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 trucks 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.Earthmovement 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 trucks 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 and staging 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.
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.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the public right-of-way (Los
Trancos Road or 7.7 acre City-owned parcel).
3-19
43.
44.
45.
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.~
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 final 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
3-20
Planning Division.
Post-Construction Monitoring
47.
48.
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 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 arid final year of annual inspections the certified arborist finds 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.
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...afler June 15 of each year. If corrective measures are required
(e.g., erosion control, re-vegetation), they shall be recommended in this written
report.
49.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.
50.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 .
3-21
implemented by the homeowners association.
51.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.
cndnstm.lst
3-22
¯ ...-~. -.. ~ Proposed Water Tank
Proposed Private Open SpacelCommon Area ;’:
!/!/..~
ATTACHMENT 4
Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map
October 15, 1997
1 inc~ - 450 feet
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
~:~..3"~:i .....
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Paul Jensen
November 12, 1997
DEPARTMENT:Planning
Los Trancos Road (Lands ofArrillaga, AP 182-46-010); Tentative
Subdivision Map for proposed 8-lot single-family residential
subdivision with private open space/common area parce! and
Conditional Exceptions from PAMC Sections 21.20.210 and
21.28.020 (Subdivision Ordinance)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends 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:
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/PROJECT INFORMA~ON
Planning Commission Review Process for Project
The Planning Commission review process for this project has been handed 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 first 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
theFEIR 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 westem 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 Trancos Creek. With the exception of existing, graded fire roads,
except for an existing barn and caretaker’s 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
ddgetop. At the hilltop, the fire road splits, descending along the eastern and southeastern
(Trapper’s Trail) slopes of the property.
pcs~tm.la
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, orare 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 Glen 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 Trartcos
Creek (adjacent to Los Trancos 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.
Histo _ry of Project
A Tentative Map application for the proposed 8 lot, 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 andplans. 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)~
pcsr-tm.lst
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.
Project 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 revisions
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 1o0, with envelope grades
ranging fi’om 2% to 3%. Building envelope areas have been relocated off of ridgetops
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 lot, 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 recordation of the envelope with the map, or b)
restrict the use of the lot area that is located outside of the building envelope zone.
pcsr-tm.lst
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3 l!i~$~:iii[i]:~ii.:~
Page 4
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 s!oped, 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.
pcsr-tm.lst Page 5
8,40 acres
6.82 acres
4.91 acres
9,91 acres
8.22 acres
8,29 acres
11.60 acres
66.13 acres
81.59 acres **
Lot No.
1
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
Subtotal
9**
(Open Space)
Los Trancos 2.27 acres
Road 60’
right-of-way
TOTAL 151,41 acres
Lot #6 proposes an odd-shaped parcel.
400 feet
550 feet
250 feet
350 feet
150 feet
650 feet
450 feet
%
32,5%
6.6%
3.0%
10.5%
17.26%
15,28%
Elevation
,:Envelope
828 feet
844 feet
913 feet
863 feet
874 feet
828 feet
863 feet
841 feet
*This parcel includes a "Parcel 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 area). The
parcel also includes a developed barn and caretakers residence, which would remain.
Does not include an additional 1,42 acres of common open space land across Los Trances Road.
Access and Circulation.
The subdivision proposes access from 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 dcres would be devoted to access roads (excluding driveways for each lot),
public utility easements (excluding individual septic system leachfields), and a 60-
foot wide road right-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
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). The road 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
~dividual 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 ~ii::~!~.
Page 7
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.
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 existing 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 tank 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 leaclffields 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 leactffields 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.
Grading (Cut and Fill).
Site development would involve grading to build roads, driveways, utilities and
structures. The following chart presents the estimated amount of grading that would
pcsr-tm.lst
be required for subdivision design and individual lot development. Estimates for
grading private &’iveways and building envelope areas are approximate, and based on
the current area location, size and grade of these improvements. The specific location
of and amotmt of grading for the private driveways and building areas would be
determined at the time 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
Total amount of earthmovement for
subdivision improvements
Residential Lot Development
1. Private Driveways
2. Building envelope areas
9,237
6,063
750
350
16,400
2,491
3,020
7,324
860
5O
250
8,484
2,054
5,032
E.Total earthmovement 21,911 *15,570’
¯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 Distdc0, 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
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
Water Tank*
Existing, caretakers home, barns
TOTAL (square.feet):
Percent of Total Site Area
Coverage of 24 foot wide road
width.
Coverage of 12-20 foot width.
Impervious surface allowance of
9,050 square feet per lot.
Lot #1
Lot #2
Lot #3
Lot #4
Lot #5
Lot #6
Lot #7
Lot #8
-1,800 SF
-4,800 SF
-6,600 SF
-3,00O SF
-4,200 SF
-1,800 SF’
-7,800 SF
-5,400 SF
Maximum 200,000 gallon water
tank.
Part of Lot #6
73,288
46,100
72,400
35,400
3,000
7,600
237,78~ ..........
3.6%+(3.6%**) ....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 Trancos 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 that 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 parcel for private open space and subdivision improvements that require private
ownership and maintenance (stormwater detention basin, water tank, main and
pcsr-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 fight-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 Trancos Road. However, no modifications to the width of Los
TrancosRoad are proposed by the project or planned by the City at this time.
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 fight-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..__~s than the minimum 10 acre size,
these reduced lot sizes would not reqttire the approval of a conditional exception. Per
pcsr-tm.lst
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 l:!i~~i!!i~i~i~!~
Page
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, futt~e 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 first5 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 Tentativ.e 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 in area). The proposed reduction in lot sizes and the introduction
of a separate, private open space/common area parcel, 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 Page 13
Palo Alto.
Policy 7 andProgram 13 of the Housing Element encourage the development of new
affordable housing units and require t,hat 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 working 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, staff has 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-family 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, whichis 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 mitgafion 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 significantly impact operational levels
(Levels of Service) along existing 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
this policy would occur with additional recommended revisions to the map.
Recommended revisions include 1) a realignment of the main access road (along the
hilltop) and 2) implementation of a tree replanting program, which would facilitate
fmlher clustering of buildingenvelope 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 scene
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 developlnents 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 1 and Policy 14. Policy
1 encourages that new projects minimize the quantity and effects of water rtm-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
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 li!i~.i.:~i~ii~{~
pcsr-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 Dislrict. 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 L~_ out
The general design and layout of the revised Tentative Map is 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:
pcsr-tm.lst
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 defmed in the project description.
Furthermore, the proposed envelopes are intended to identify the potential
location of homes ~ and to provide an estimate on ’.nnpervious 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, defmed and
recorded for each lot. In this case, defined envelopes are appropriate to a)
ensure that future development on the lots is confined 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 recormnended 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 cz.,a be easily defined by meets and bounds.
c. Envelopes immediately fronting the main access road are def’med by a
3 0 foot front yard setback, consistent with the provisions of the OS
District.
The envelope should be identified on the Final Map and recorded with a
meets and bounds description. 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
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-31
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 accessroad would require adjustments in lot lines and the location
of building areas. These modifications would result in a tighter clustering
of development.
o Proposed Private Open Space/Common Area.
The latest revisions to the map propose over 81 acres of hillside area for
private open space/common area. This land area represents 54% of the total
site area. By comparison, the proposed private open space/common area is
greater than the amount 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
defmition 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
0fiking, viewing), pedestrian access, roads for subdivision and emergency
access and utilities.
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 fB 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
geotectmical 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 introducing retaining walls to replace and/or
minimize cut and fill slope banks. The DEIR recommends use of retaining
walls (see Mitigation Measures 5.2-1, 5.2-3, and 5.8-1). Mitigation
pcsr-tm.lst
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.
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 Mitgafion 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 fire 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 which are
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
pcsr-tm.lst
pcsr-tm.lst
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 confmn the specific tank size.
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,
if the 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
deletion of the stormwater detention basin eliminates a number of concerns
raised by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (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
pcsr-tm.lst
design and calculations for 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
DE]R, septic leachfields for lots #2 and #3 have been relocated outside of
heavily wooded areas. However, leachfields 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 relocated to 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 Trancos 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-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-31
Page
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 lot, in 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).
o Review of Draft Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
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 t,he private open space/common area
parcel (lot #9), as -,,cell 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 Pro[ect 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
mitigation measures. These recommended revisions are discussed below. The
following is a summary of those pertinent mitigation 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 proposed lots #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 fire 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 Flow 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 building 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 5.5-3c require that
road slopes (main access, emergency 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-3
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 this impact 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/fn’e 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 amounts 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-tm.lst
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3
Page 24
of additional project altemative 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 main 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_.At 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.
pcsr-tm.lst
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 parcel 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, staff will
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
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3 l~i~S!O.~!!~!i~)~
Page 25
pcsr-tm.lst
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 geotechnical 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 !and 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 fouror more parcels shall be designed on the
duster 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
Page 26
access road would reduce grading, would permit a tighter 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).
Compliance with Ciq’s Tree Presetwation and Management Requirements (P~IC
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;
Along the emergency access road, immediatelybeyond the terminus of the
proposed main access road cul-de-sac;
In the area of the proposed stormwater detention basin; and
In the area of the proposed water tank.
In addition to the above, "protected trees" are found on designated building 6nvelopes
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 recent survey 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
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31.~~..~.....i~i.!..~~
Page 27
Improvement Tree Removal
Rating 1 Rating 2-3 Total
(poor)(fair to good)
Main Access Road 23 24 47
"Hair-pin" turn in main access road 4 2 6
Water Tank 7 7
Entrance to emergency vehicle access **8
road
TOTAL:**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 wouM 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 if all
"protected trees" are to be maintained. It would be impossible to retain all
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"protected trees" that would be
removed. The existing access road that runs along the northeastern border
pcsr-tm.lst
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 o~
over this road. Therefore, use of the existing, graded fn’e 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).
o 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.
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.
pcsr-tm.lst
94-SUB-5, 97-ARB- 190, 94-EIA-3
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 area of dense tree cover. There are no suitable
building envelope areas on lot #5 that are completely free of tree cover.
Therefore, it is likely thatremoval 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"protected 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 leachiield 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 full-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 Page 30
the program will need to be based on planting performanc~ 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 revisions 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 aspart 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 liom Section
21.20.210. In this case, 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-
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 mitgafion measure 5.7-4b
(DEIR pages 5.7-6 and 5.7-7) requires the maintenance of Trapper’s
Trail as a fn’ebreak.
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 fight-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 District.
Compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. and
Architectural Review (PAMC Chapter 16.48).
Full implementation of the DEIR Mitigation Measures.
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 94-SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 l ii~:~,~ii.~i~i~i!~
Page 32
Attachment 4 of this report, entitled, Recommended Revisions to Tentative Map, October 15,
1997:
Revisions to the grading of the main access road.
The first 400 lineal feet of the main access road shall be realigned to foilow the
existing, graded fire road. This realignment will eliminate 40 feet of fill in this area.
Cut slope grades in this 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, 400 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 ihe 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~i~ili~.l..~.~
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.
Buildingenvelopes 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 date are 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" altemative 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 alternative 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
94,SUB-5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-3 l~A~.S..iii~i~:.~i:..!::~9:...~..7:..~
Page 34
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 fire 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" alternative. 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 alignment of the existing, graded fire access road
(similar to the 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
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 mitgafion. 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, DEIR, & 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 final review by the Architectural Review
Board prior to City Council approval of the Final Map for recordation.
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)
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
94-SUBo5, 97-ARB-190, 94-EIA-31~~.!ii~!.~i~~
Page 36
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment 1:Location Map
Attachment 1 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
Attachinent 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:Arborist Report/Tree Inventory
Attachment 9:Letter from United Soil Engineering, Inc. To John Arrillaga 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 Arrillaga, 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
Attn: 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, 14 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
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 Page 3 8
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
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 of ridgetops/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 property 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 banks 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.
Response: 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.
o
Statement 6. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone 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 final review and approval by the ARB.
Statement 7. Landscaping should be native species which require little or. no
irrigation (except immediately adjacent to ~Iructures 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
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.Revegetate 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
cha .nnels 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
Statement 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 Presera,ation:
a. Site structures to minimize adverse visual impacts when viewed from off-
site.
b.Maximize open space preservation.
c.Protect view corridors on the site to maintain views of prominent scenic
features.
d. Prevent the obstruction of views of adjacent property owners by
appropriately designing new structures or additions to existing structures.
e.Consider the future height of trees and shrubs so that yours and your
neighbors views on and off site will not become obstructed.
Response: 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 defmed 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.
Re,wonse: 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 from 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 to 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 withthe
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 revisions 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 accessory 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~,waYs :
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. Structure, 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 confined to the required
building envelope for each lot.
pvgdlns2.1st
5B-5
June 2, 1997
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Di~.’ision
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) componeni. 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 are appropriate
rather th~in 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-
half percent) of the sum of the appraised value of each of the 8 lots as determined in
item 3, below.
o The total appraised value shall be determined based on the fair market 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 HamiltonAvenue
P.O. B6x 10°-50
Palo Alto, CA 94303
4!5.329.2441
415. 329.2240 Fax ~
Mr. John Arrill~aga
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 approva! of the final subdivision map.
A. further mitigation fee based on the estimated value of 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 wood 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
pet" 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\PLANDI V\SHARE\LTBMRARR
Thank you for your cooperatio~ during the planning process onthis project, If you
agree with this revised proposal, please sign this letter indi-atin~ that w,e have reached
agreement regarding the BMR component fo.r your project.
Sincerely,
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Dircct.or of Planning and
Commu nit.y E.~virot~cnt
Alt:achment: BuiIding "v’aluation Data, April 1997
Sam Zullo, Mark Thomas al~d Company
Marl=n~ Prendergast, Polo Alto Housing Corporation
D~br~ C~.uble, Assistan~ Cky A1toi’n~y .
Paul Jansen, Contract Planner
agree i~o provide a Below Market Rate component to the 8 lot sulxlivision on
’£rancos Road as described in this letter dated Jut’~e. 2, 1997..
.g :\!~ L.AN\PLANDI V!~gl-[A RT~\LTBM PARR
\..hich v.¢’re esl.fl)lished in April 1997.
Cos! p~r Sq.are
Type I or I~ F.R." ..............378.30
lGnocl) $96.20
Type V~.Ma~onry
lot Type 111) ..................64.00
(Gnod] 578.20
Type V~Wood Frame .....$6.20
lGood) $72.20
T)pe l--g~ement Garage 33.00
2. AUDITORIUMS:
%pc I o~ II [.R .................92.30
~)’pe 11--I-Hour ..............66.80
TTpe II~N 63.30
Type III--I-Hour .............70.30
~)’pe III--N .....................66.70
T)pe V~I .Hour ..............67.20
T)pe V~N ......................62.70
3. BANKS:
Type I or II F.R." ..............130.30
~)pe II~I .~our ..............96.00
Type II--N ......................93.00
1)pc III--I-Huur .............106.00
~)’pe III--N ......................~ 02.~0
Type V~I-Hour ..............96.00
T)’pe V--N ......................92.00
4, BOWLING ALLEYS:
Type ll~l-Hour ..............
Type II~N ......................42.00
Type III~I-Hour .............48.80
4 S.B0
7, DWELLINGS:T)’pe V--Ma.~on:y .........S66.70
(Good)Type V--Wood Frame..59.30(Good~ Sal.S0
Semi.Finished ...........17.70(Good} $20.50
Un~nlshed ................] 2.80
(Good} S 15.60
8. tIRE STATIONS:
T)pe I or II F,R ...............100.80
T)’l)e ll--I-Hour ............66.20
Type II--N ....................6~.S0
Type III--~ .Hour ...........72.60
T),p~ III--N .................~. 6930
T)pe V--l.Hour..: .........68.00
Type V--N ....................64.70
9. EIOMES FOR THE ELDERLY:
"’Ty )e I or II
Type ll--1.Hour ............ 74.30
Type II--N ....................71.00
Type II1--I -Hour ...........77.20
Type III--N ...................74.20
" Type V--l.Huur ............74.80
Type V--~ ....................72,00
10.14OS~ITALS:
Type I or II F.R,* ............143,80
~)’pe lll--l.Hour ...........119.00
lype V--I -Hour ............113.50Type III--N .....................
Type V--I-Hour ..............33.00
5. CHURCHES:
Type I or II F.R .................87.40
"lype ll--l.Hour ..............65.50
Type II--N ......................62.30
Type 111--I -Hour .............71.30
Type III--N .....................68.20
Type V--1-Hour ..............66.70
Type V--N ......................62.70
1 I. HOTELS AND MOTELS:~ype I or II F.R," ............89.00
ype III--I-Hour ...........77.00
Type III--N ....................7330
Type V--I-Hour ............67.00
Type V--N ....................65.70
12, INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:
G. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS:
t22.50 ype lot II ..............)’pc II--l-Hour ..........:,..85.00
lype Ill--I-Hour .............87.20
Type V--t-Hour ..............82.~0
~TyI)~ I or II F.R ...............50.20
ype II--I .Hour ............35.00
Type II--N .....................32.00
TTF, e lll--I-Hour ...........38.50
T)po III--N ....................36.20
Tilt-up ...........................26,30
Type V~I-Hour ............36.’20
Type V--N ....................33.20
Cos| per 5qua~’¢
Occup:~ncy and T)p~Font, A~etage
I 3. IAILS:
Type lot II F.R ...............S 140.00
T)pe III--I -Hour ...........128.00
Type V--I ,Hour ............96.00
14. LIBRARIES:
T>pe I or Ii F.R ............... 102.S0
Type II--I -Hour 75.00
T~pe II--N .....................71.30
Tipe III--I-Hour ...........79.20
T)pe Ilion ....................75.20
T~pe V--I -Hour ............74.S0
Type \’--N ....................71.30
15. MEDICAL OFFICES:
Type I or II F.R." ............105.20
Type ll--1.Hour ............81.20
Type II~N .....................77.20
Type III~1 .Hour ...........85.40
T~pe Ilion ....................82.00
Type V~I-Hour., ..........79,40
Type V--N ....................,76..60.
18. OFFICES" ":
Type I or It F.R." ........i..,94.00
Type I1--1-Hour ............63.00
T)p’e II--N .....................60.00
"[vpe lll--l-Hour .......,..68.00
Tipe III--I’~’ ....................65.00
Type V--I -Hour ............63.70
T)pe V--N ....................60.00
17. PRIVATE GARAGES:
Wood Frame .................21.50
Masonry ........................24.20
Open Carports ." ........; ....14.60
18, PUBliC BUILDINGS:
Type I or II F.R." ............108.60
T)pe II--1-Hour ............88.00
T}pe II--N .....................84.~0
Tipe III--I -Hour ...........91.40
Type III--N ....................88,20
T~’pe V--I-Hour ............83.70
Type V--N ....................80.60
19. PUBLIC GARAGES:
Type I or II F.R." ............ 43.00
Type I or II Open Parking’ 32.40
T)pe II--N .....................25.30
Type II1--1 .Hour "32,60
Type III--N ....................29.00
Type V--I-Hour ............29.70
Co~l per Sq.:-’e
Occup:mcy an(] Typ{Font, A’,crag~,
20. RESTAURANTS:
TTpe IH--I-H~ur ..........SB 5180
Tipe III--N ....................90.00
T~pe V--I .Hour .....: ......78.60Type V--N ....................75.50
21. SCHOOLS:
Type I or II F.R ...............9~.00Type II--I -Hour ............66.80
Type III--I -Hour ...........71 .SO
Type III--N ....................68.80
Type V--1 -Hour ............67.00
Type V--I’,I ....................64.00
22. SERVICE STATIONS:
Type II--N .....................59.20
Type III--I .Hour ...........’ 61.70
Type V--I .Hour ............52.60
Canopies .......................24.70
23. STORES:
TTyPe I’or II F.R." ............72.60ype ll--l-Hour ............" 44.S0Type II--N .....................43.30Type I~1 .Hour ...........54.00Type III-.:N ....................S0.70
Type V--I.Hour ............45.S0
Type V--N ....................42.00
24. THEATER~:
Type I or 11 F,R ...............96.70
Type II1--1-Hour ...........70.40
Type III--N ....................67.00
Type V--1 .Hour ............66.30
Type V--N ....................62.70
25. \VAREHOUSES"’:
Type I or II F,R ...............43.50
Type II or V--l- Hour ...25.80
Type II or V--N .............24.30
Type III--).Hour ...........29.30
Type III--N ....................28.00
EQUIPMENT
AIR CONDITIONING:
Commercial ..............3.60
Residential ................3.00
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ....1.80
Add 0.5 percent In lolal cost for each story over three, ¯"’O,~duct 20 percent for shell-only buildings.""Deducl I I percent for minl-warehou,~es.
R~GIONAL MODIFIERS
The l’ollowing modil’iers are recommended i’or use in conjunction with the building valuation data. Addltlonal~y certain local conditions may rec uire ~urlher
modal}cations. To u.~e lhese modifiers, merely muhiply lhe lisled co~l per square fool by lhe appmprlale regional ~odd’ie~. For e~ample, to adiusl the cost of a
T)pe III O:~e-hour hotel building of ~ve~age ¢on~4~u¢llon [or lhe lov, a area, .~elect Regional Modifier 0.80 and unll co~l (tom valuation dala, ~,77.00:
0.B0 x 77.00 = $61.60 (adiusled cost per square fool)
Eastern U.S. (cont.)Modifier
l’~nnS)’Ivanlo
Philadelphia ....................0.96
Other ................~ ..............0.83
Rhode Island ........................0.9-I
Suud~ Carolin,~ .....................0.70
Vermonl ...............................0,80
k~ini.~ ................................0.73
We~t Vi~inla .......................0.82
Cenlral U.S.
Alabama ..............................0.7,2Arkansas..............................0.70lllinols ..................................0.67
Indona ................................0.~2lu’,va ...................................0.80
Central U.5, (conl.)Modifier
K0nSa~, .................................0.74
I.’.emucky..............................0.77
Louisiana .............................0.76
,’.tichi~an .............................0.84
Minnesota ............................0.86
,.I,ssu.,pp~ ...........................O.71
Mi.~sourl ...............................0,78
Nebraska .............................0.75
No:;h Dakota .......................0.80
Ohio ...................................0,80
Okbhom~ ............................0.7 I
Soulh Dakota .......................0.78
Tennessee ............................0.72
"t’,.’ ,, :L~ ....................................0.74
WiSconsin ............................0.85
Western U.S.Modifier
AI ,’L’, k a ..................................1.30
A.*izona ................................0.82
Cahfomia
Lo~ Angeles .....................1.00
San Dan¢iSco ..................I .I 3
O:her ...............................0.94
Colorado ..............................0.81
H0v.aii .................................1.14
Idaho ...................................0.80
,Montana ..............................0.79
Nevoda ................................0.89
New Mexico ........................0.76
Oregon ................................0.83
Uu,h ...................................0.75
W’,-:h~n~ton ..........................0.8~
’:,’) omlng .............................0.80 -
Easlern U.S.Modifier
Connecl~cul .........................
Delaware .............................0.84
Dislricl or’ Columbia ............0.87
Florida .................................0.74
Geoq~ia ................................0,68
htai,e .........................: ........0.81
Mar)’lancl .............................0.79
,Ma~achu.~ett~ ......................0.94
~ ,,..,v Hampshire ...................0.82
Ne.v Jersey ...........................0.91
New York
F,’e;v York Cily .................I .I 6
Olher ...............................0.87
Nurlh Carulina .....................0.70
52 LIUILDIXG STANDARDS~,Ma:ch.Apri! 1997
ATTACHMENT 7
Comparison of Revised Tentative Map with other Existin~ and Approved Residential
DeveloPments in the area
Project
Proposcd Project
(revised)
Lee Subdivision.
Palo Alto
Hewlett
Subdivision,
Palo Alto
Portola Valley
Ranch, Portola
Valley
Portola Glen,
Portola Valley
Blue Oaks,
Portola Valley
Total Site
Area
151.5 acres
5O
107
453
46
# of
lots/parcels
(densiu-
gross)
8
(1 uniffl8.9
acres)
5
(1 unit/10
acres)
10
(1 unit/10
acres)
205
(1 unit/2.2
acres)
11
3o
Parcel size
range
4.91-11.60
acres
4.2-9.6 acres
4.1-6.2 acres
N.A.
l. 1-2.0 acres
0.7-3.1 acres
Average
parcel size
8.25 acres
6.2 acres
0.7 acres
1.5 acres
2.0 acres
Clustering
common open
space parcel
common open
space separated
from lots by
roadway; no
eh,stering 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
open space
clustered
surrounded by
common open
space
Open Space
(% of total) .
8!.59 acres
(54%)
19 acres
common area
(38%)
56 acres of
¢omlllon 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
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 ZULLQ
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.
samJ. Zullo ¢
sjz:sh
enclosure
Copy: John Arrillaga
Robert Phillips
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES HIGNWAYS AND BRIDGES MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSESSMENT O|STRICTS HYDRGLOGY AND DRA|NAGE
SITE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS PARKS SURVEYING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND INSPECTION SPECIAL DISTRICT MANAGEMENT
10/5/97
RECEIVED
OCf 0 7 1997
MARK THQMAS & CO., INC.
Mr. Sam J. Zullo $,JZ ~f
Mark Thomas & Co, Inc.RKT
PRS90 Archer Street TRF
San Jose, Ca. 95112 DER
Phone (408)4453-5373 I’,UL
ACCTG
Fsx (408)4S3-S390 S J" FILE
Re: Lands of Ar’rillaga - Tree Locations
Dear Mr, Zullo :
Please find enclosed the Tree li~t 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 me surrounding cultural
environment . The trees system can be affected by a variety of different influences . Tre~s that =re
suppressed in the forest floor are deprived of available sunlight and are there by stunted in their
overall growt~. 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 .thi~ report ..were_gi_v.e._n_~_~umber one r.~ti_ng__which..means that Lhe.y_ were
poor to fair in their overall condition , Trees with a number two rating have matured end deVerOp-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 overall value . This is because of the
combination of their tree species , individual age t measurement in inches of the tree trunk diameter at
approximately four feet six inches, from the present ground level and the overall favorable existing
cultural conditions.
Some trees were misidentified and some trees were not located 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 N#me Identification List & Key.
(i) Aescul~s_.californica - CaLifornia Buckeye
(2) Arbu~.us,, menzieii - Pacific Madrcne
(3)Heteromeles arbutifolia - Toyon
(4)Sequoia $~mDervirens - Redwood
(5)0uercus agrifolia - Coast Live .Oak
(6)0uercus kellowgii - Black Oak
(7)0uercus 10bate - Valley Oak
(8)_Umbellularia callfornica -California Laurel
The trees
numbers .
are listed and identified according to the
Page 1 of 8
94045-PORTOLA
O;£PJ3194045.,PORTOLA \ WORD-dEXCEL.MISC\ TREE.LIS T
DATE: 9/18/97
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
14
15
~ 17
- 18
19
20
21
24
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
10+00
36+8.490 Center
backsit#l/’nwl
check#l 3/fnd.nSs
backsite#12
set-80d-nail
fnd-n$,.~l 4.
set-80d-$pike
cl-fehce
cl-rence
cl-fence
el-fence
¢J-fence
el-fence
cl-fence
cl-fence
cl-fenca
live-oak
live-oak
I~ck.site#13
set-80d-nail
clump-llve-oak 12"
UVE-OAK .........8"- ................(5) ~
BAY LAUREL 20"
LIVE-OAK 1
LIVId-OAK 18"
BACKBITE#3007
UVE43AK-OLUMP 6-18"
UVE-OAK 20"
OAK ~’~".
OAK 2.2."
REDWOOD 10"
LIVE-OAK t 6"
OAK 24"
OAK 12"
OAK
MADRONE 4"
OAK 12"
OAK 18"
OAK 10"
OAK 1
TREE-LIST
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
5:3
54
55
57
6O
61
62
65
6"/
68
’70
7’2
7’4
75
81
82
83
84
87
Page 2 ~f 8
CHAIN-GATE-POST
CHA1N.GATEopOST
OAK-CLUMP 4.12"
CL.EX.ROAD
CL-EXoROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
CL-F_.X.ROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
OAK 8"
oAK
OAK 20"
"8~-T-80D-NAIL
"BACKSITE#:3020
,CHECK#3005
OAK 18"
OAK
OAK 2-18"
OAK 18"
OAK 10"
GUY
.GUY
OAK 18"
OAK 1-18",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"-18"
LAUREL 10"
LAUREL 2-14",1-8"
OAK 2-12"
LAUREL
OAK
~ET-80D-NAIL
backsite#30,52
LAUREL 20"
OAK 2-18"
OAK 18"
OAK 14"
LAUREL 2"12",2"6"
OAK 10"
LAURISL
OAK
TREE-LIST
9O
91
92
93
94
95
97
9~
10(3
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
"109
111
119_
11~
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
12.1
122
12.3
127
129
133
135
1~7
138
OAK
LAUREL
LAUREL
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
MADRONE
OAK
8ET-80dNAIL
SF--.T-80dNAIL
.BACKBITE#3102
OAK
OAK
OAK
O,~K
GRND#END-TREE
FL-18"CMP/OLTFFAL
FL-18"CMP@INLET
OAK.
OAK
OAK
CL-EX.ROAD
CL-F-X.ROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
GL-F...X.ROAD
GL-EX.ROAD
I,~UREL
OAK
OAK
SET-80D-NAIL
BACKS1TE#3123
OAK
OAK
OAK
LAUREL
OAL
LAUREL
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK-DEAD
LAUREL
LAUREL
OAK
Page 3 of 8
3.9‘=
2-16",1-12"
10"
28"
10"
3-12"
11"
12"
24"
2-10"
10"
TREE.LIST
139
140
14I
142
143
144
145
146
t47
.148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
~160
161
162~
163
164
165
166
167
168
~169
170
171
172.
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183,
184
185
186
187
.Page 4 of 8
OAK
LAUREL
LAUREL ..
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
FL-18"CMP
CL-ED(.ROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
CL-EX, ROAD
CL-EX.ROAD
SET.-80D-NA1L
BACK$1TF_.#3153
OAK
OAK
OAK
MADRONE
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
F-L-18"CMP(~INLET
BACKBITE#3123
SET-80dSPII~ .........
20"
20’
2-24"
6"
20"
8"
4"
4"
8"
8"
10"
10"
BACKSITE#3169
MADRONi5 10"
OAK 2-4"
OAK 4’
OAK
OAK 8’
OAK..
OAK 42"
OAK 12"
OAK 1-26",1-16’
OAK 3-10"
MADRONE 3-6"
OAK 1-24",1-16"
OAK 16 ", 1
MADRONE 2,-4"
MADRONE 6’
OAK 30"
OAK 30"
T~EE-LIST
188 OAK
189 OAK
190 OAK
191 BLACK-OAK
192 OAK
193 SET-16DNAIL
195 BACK8 ITE#~ 169
196 .CHEC K,irJ,15:3
197 FL-I 8"GMPIOUTFAL
198 ’FL-18"CMP@ IN LET
199 OAK
200 MADRONE 4"
201 MA~RONE
202 . MADRONE 8"
203 LAUREL 12"
204 OAK 8"
205 LAUREL 3-10"
206 OAK 2-12",1-8"
207 OAK B’
208 LAUREL 10"
209 VALLEY-OAK 12’
210 LAUREL 10"
211 BLACK-OAK 1-12",1-B"
212 OAK 12"
213 LAUREL 2-12",1-10",1-8"
214 OAK 24",20", 10"
215 LAUREL 2-10"
216 ’~ET-N$S
217 backsite#3169
218 laurel 2-4"
.....219 laurel ...........2-4
220 OAK 8",6"
22.1 OAK
222.MADRONE 4"
2.2.3 OAK I 0"
~24 OAK
225 LAUREL 10"
226 LAUREL 12",16"
227 LAUREL 18,
228 OAK 26"
229 OAK 22"
230 OAK 10"
231 BACK$1TE#3153
232 .SL=-r’-80dNAIL
233 OAK 8~
234 OAK 2-10"
235 LAUREL 4"
236 OAK 10"
237 OAK 10"
TREE-LIST
Page 6 of 8
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
~52
254
257
258
~60
261
,’ 262.
264
266
....... 268
269
27O
271
272
.....273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
282
283
¯ 284
285
286
:.~287
OAK
OAK
BACKS~TE#3169
LAUREL
VALLEY-OAK
SET-8Onafl
8Er-SDna[I
vaIIey,-oak
valley-oak
valley-oak
valley-oak
OAK
LAUREL
OAK
TREJ5
¯ BACKsrrE#3243
¯ 8El’-8Od-nail
- backsite#3244
¯ check-hv-7/I/I
controI-PT3254
’controI-PT3244
¯ BACKSITE#/~244
.CHECK#111
.BACKSITE#I 11
MADRONE
MADRONE
OAK
MADRONE
OAK
OAK
MADRONE
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
.
¯ BACKSITF_#111
BLDG.~ITELOT-1
¯ BLDG.SrI’ELOT-~
BACKSITE#I O9
~LDG-81TF_./LOT-6
OAK
MADRONE
MADRONE
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
2-6"
4-4"-
26"
4"
8",10",12"
4"
............... 2-20".
20"
6"
4"
3-10"
6".
10"
10"
10’
4"
4"
12"
"’4.",6°
TREE-LIST
288
289
290
291
292
~ 293
295
297
298
299
~ 300
301
302
303
3O4
3O5
3O6
3O7
308
309
310
311
.312
313
314
~315
318
317
..... 318
319
320
,321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
;331
332
333
334-
335
336
Page 7 of 8
OAK
L,OAK
BACK$1TE#121
. OAK
OAK
¯ BACKSITF_.#109
¯ ..C U EC V,~ 22
BLDG.SlTE-LOT-5
¯ OAK
I_&UREL
~AK
OAK
OAK
LAUREL
OAK
OAK
OAK
MADRON. .
OAK
MADRONE
OAK
’,OAK
DAK
,OAK
. OAK
¯ OAK
..OAK
OAK
:OAK
.OAK
¯OAK
¯
OAK
OAK
, OAK
,OAK
’.OAK
~OAK
. OAK
LAUREL
LAUREL
L,OAK
LAUREL
WATER-TANK ~rrF_
BACKSITE#101~=27
RE-SET#25
BACKSITE#26
TREE-LIST
337
338
339
34O
343
34,5
347
350
351
352
353
354
FND.G,G,#24////
BACKSI’rE#33355
RE-,..S ET#23/t/I
SET-SPIKE
APPOX.W’TR.TANK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK.
BACKSITE~337
OAK
OAK
OAK
OAK
4-18"
12"
2-10’
4"
10"
12"
2-10"
20"
4-21 ".
3-8" .
12"
2-20’
20"
TR,£.£ K~-V :
TREE-LIST
UNITED SOIL ENGINF, ERING, INC.
Geotechnlcal a~0 Env~’on,’nenta~ Consultsnt~
File No. 40! 8-51
October 1 3.1 997
ATTACHMENT 9
Arrlll=ga Foundation
2560 Mission College Bird,
Suite 101
Sanl;a Clara, CA 950~;4
Attention: Mr, John Arrlllag.=
Proposed Residential Subdivision
500 Los Tnmcos Woods Road
Palo Alto, California
ALTERNATE LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Dear Mr. Arrillaga:
We are pleased to transmit herewith our ]ltern~,te landslide mitigation
recommendations for the subject proJe~. The ~ubJect project is the proposed
residential subdivision located at SO0 Los TranCos Woods Road In P~lo Alto,
Califorrll~,.
As Indicated In the ElK report prepared by the efftc~ of P~ul A. Jensen, landslides of-.:
various types are presertt on the slopes throughout the property (see Figure 1 Site
Plan), At the rtorthe~s~ corner of the elre, a landslide was mapped by our geologist.
This landslide traversed the main ~cces~ madway~ In addition, the EIP, geologist
indicated that the landslide may be ap~n of a large~ and older landslide, Mitigation
by grading of the landslide is rtot feasible be~u~ of removing m~r~y trees and
shrubs, Theref=re, we recommend tW. O.~ltern~tivas with no addit;ona! grading to
mitlg~.te the potential landslide at this Ior,~tion. ’
3476 Edward Avenue - Santa Clam, Csllfomia, 95054 +(40~ 988-2990 = Fax (408) g80-I~336
File No. 4018-$1
ALTERNATIyES
The construcgon of a ~ubsurFace r~alntng wall to the dep~,hs
of competent mal;er~l as i~l~t~ In our ~oi~ ~d
Found~[ion I~esflg~Uon Repo~ RI~ No. g~-4018-$1, d~ted
~rch 30, 199~, In ~d~n, a t~-b~ck system should be
~ns~u~ ~o p~lda ~dltion~ sup~off f~ ~he regaining wall.
The cons[ru~Jon of a st!tch-pln pier Fystem wi~h 3 feet spacing
from center m center. This pier sys~Jm should extend to the
depths of ompetent m~,terl~l.
The a~ove-mentioned ~ltematives should be p~p~Hy designed by ¯ sra’uctural
engineer .~illzlng suture soil data provided ~y th~ geotechnlc~l e~glneer. In
addition, the tone--ion of the mitigation should be pro~r~y tnspe~ed and
obsewed by a ge~technl~! engineer. ~
If you have any questions or require addlUonai! Information, please feel free to
centact our affl~e at your convenience.
Very truly YoUrS,
UNITEI~ SOIL ENGINEERING, INC,
Vien Vo, P.E.
4018.Ira/Copies:2 to ArrilJaga Foundation - ,
1 to M~rk Thomas and Comp;~ny, Attn: Mr, S~m Zullo
United Soil Engineering, inc.
Subject
ProJect
Unlced 5oll Engineerlng, Inc.
3476 Edward Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(40.8) 988-2990
Map By Paul A. Jensen, ElK
" ’srr~N’ ’ ’
Proposed Residential
~iubdivlsion
500 Lo~ Tranco~ Woods R~ad
Pal~ Alto, Caltforni.t
Drgwn by: P.AJ.
Scale: NOT TO S~--~-October
1997
ATTACHMENT 10
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
November 6, 1997
Los Trancos Road, Lands of Arrillaga 94-SUB-5
94-EIA-31
97-ARB-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 (8 l+acres in size).
Ms. Piha: Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Jensen: Staffhas a brief oral report for the benefit of the board and the punic, 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 rgviewing 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 attachtnent, 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 stafffor 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 EIR. 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 Terilynn Langsev-Burt.
Ms. Piha: First, I think it would be helpful if you could expand upon your opening comments.
A:g~ostrancos.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. Staff has 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, Piha: 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:~Lostrancos.Page 2
improvements, which include grading, the access roads, a proposal for an outside detention basin,
which staff is 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.Peierson: 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 is not 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 off to anyone. How that affects whether the lots are sold off as
a group and developed as one, I cannot answer right now. The project engineer may be able to
respond 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 and Company: We are the civil engineers on the project for
Mr. Arrillaga, the owner of the property. With regard to the staff report, 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 wasa 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 stafffor their consideration. We understand that these items will be
A:kLostrancos.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 wall 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 houses 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 staff has 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:kLostrancos.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 staffproposed 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 Comments in the EIR. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tefilynn
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 condition 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 Valley. 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.
A:kLostrancos.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 this road 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 op.en 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 Terilyrm. 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 Iam
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
viablefor 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 walls. 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 all.but
one of the residences at the current location, which would mean that that particular system, for its
spi-inkler 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 initial review, as indicated by the
consultant that the city retained, shows that it could be a maximum of 200,000 gallons.
Mr. Peterson: 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 legally 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’s comments.
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. Peterson: 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 front 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 after 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
responder.
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:kLostrancos.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 200,000 gallon 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 options 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 tratTlc 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. Zullo: 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. Peterson: 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:~Lostrancos.Page 11
Mr. Zullo: With the realignment of th~ 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 superior 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 of the 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, Zullo: 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:kLostrancos.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 arbofist.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 retaining 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 !ooked 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:kLostrancos.Page 13
Mr. Marinaro: The existing water towers we have in the foothills, there only is a pumping station.
Mr. B ellomo: 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 way? I know there is a steep incline here. Did you ever study keeping the road at a
lower level?
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
c.ompromise 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 staffis recommending here, does that basically compromise the location of the
building envelopes in this plan versus the alternate?
A:~Lostrancos.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.?
Mr. Bellomo: I wonder if you could cl~ify for me again the plans with regard to development of
the sites.
Mr. Zullo: Right now, 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. Lippert: In the report, there are some photographs that show some suggested houses.
Mr, Zullo: Those were big houses. What we wer6 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, t 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:~Lostrancos.Page 15
Mr.Lippert: The information I am try. ing to get is what would be visible from Los Trancos Road.
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 a lot 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 to 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 homes in a fire situation.
Mr. Alfonso: So what you are after 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?
Mr. 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 development.
Mr. Lippert: 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 unclearif, 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:~Lostrancos.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 itseltT.
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:~ostrancos.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 frame 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 retum 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, Zullo: I do not know of anything right now, but I would guess that probably the first house
would be built in two years.
Ms. Piha: 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.
~: We can now begin the board comments.
Mr. Mfonso: 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 integrate 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
the pavement and you will need to take a good look at that. As Bob said, when I saw the
A:kLostrancos.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 walls 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 concerned 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 interest 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 ofavested 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 discussing 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. Peterson: 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.
Ms. Piha: 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:kLostrancos.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. One is 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 prob!em 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. Harrington: 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:kLostrancos.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. Harrinffton: You could say it is like an interlodking paver, but what actually happens is that
the way it is constructed, there are 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. Peterson: Will the final recommendations be included in the information that goes to Portola
Valley?
Mr. Jensen: Ye.s, 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 Att~ichment 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 arborist has the right 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 right to further ask for a time extension, if
necessary.
Ms, Piha: is that an amendment?
Mr. Peterson: Yes.
A:kLostrancos.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 specific 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 EIR, 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 essentially 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 staff report and the EIR.
Ms. Piha: Any further discussion?
Mr, Alfonso: If, in fact, the configuration of the tentative map is changed and it does come back
for review, 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:~Lostrancos.Page 23
B6B l~ayeltreet
~an t:ranci~o, (fl g~nT
ATTACHMENT 11
IVl.r. Scott McPherson
Nichols Barman
142 Minna St.
San Francisco~ CA 94105
Los Trancos Subdivision EIR- Flooding on Buckeye Creek
Dear Scott,
At your rexluest, I’ve assessed the flooding history, sad the potential for
project impacts on the existing flood hazard on Buckeye (?reek. The
assessment included a plmaimetered estimate of the watershed area (not
addressed in the ELK), review of the origin~ ElK peak flow computations tbr
site Sub-watershed 1, and conversations with engineering staff of’he City of
Pale Alto Engineering Division.
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 ya.,d. Upstream of the compound m
Foothills Park, the creek forks imo two branches, one of which fbrms the
outlet channel for Borunda Lake. The Buckeye Creek Watershed
encompasses approxhnaXcly 940 acres (1.5 sq. rrtiles) aJa.d is nearly fully
undeveloped, with the bulk of the area contained within Foothills Park. Just
upstream of its confluence with Los Trances Creek, Buckeye Creek emer~ a
large expanse of freshwater wetland en route to the inlel of a 36-inch culvert
under Los Trances Road The willow and cattail thicket is dense and the
culvert entrance was urunaintained at the time of the 1.996-.97, site inspections.
EIR team members did observe some sheet flooding occurring 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 Traz~cos
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 performance 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 lhis stretch of L0s Trances Road to be outside of
the City’s maintenance jurisdiction, i.e. a private roadway. Therefore, the
City claims no responsibility for roadway (or culvert) maintenance
I understand lh.a~ the Plam~tng Department is aware of some recent negotiat~oI~s between
the e~ties of Pale A]lo and Portol~ Valley regarding ownership and maintenance of this
,stretch of Los Trancos Road. [fPaio Alto does ~ccept responsibiliU for roadway
maintenance~ Engineering Division s:aff wil! likely conduct a hydraulic assessmem of the
existing culvert and the ~eporled roadway flooding. At that .juncture, some action
dusigned to remedy the minor flood h~zard (re’ vdticle safety on Los Trancos Road) will
undoubtedly b~ forthcoming.
The peak flow computations previously conducted for this EIR projected an increase in
subwatershed I impervious surface area of 1.93 acres. Given the presence or’the
undeveloped watershed areas.within Foothill Park and the largely completed development
of the principal Arrillaga compound just noah of the project area, the 1.93 acres likely
represents both the preject 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, Tb3s is an insufficient coverage to alter the peak flow
rates for significant floods, such as those triggered by the l(r-yr, mad 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 trust that this addresses the concerns raised by commenters on lhe EIK.
Yours truly;
William B, Vandivere, P,E,
Principal
E
ATTACHMENT 12
E
E
E
E
Correspondence and Written Comments Received
on Revisions to Tentative Map
Town Hall and O~ces: 765 Portola Ro~d, Po~.~]~V~i].~’,~ (~ 94028 Tel; (415) 851-1700 Fax: (415) 851-4677
October 9,1997
Mr, Paul Jansen
Department of Planning and Commu_nit-y Developmeat
City of Pato Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: Tentative Subdivision Map, Arrillaga, 94-SUB-5
Dear Mr. Jansen:
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 tl3. e direction of the Portola Valley Town
Council. First, we find it difficult to provide complete con’m~ents 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 [he draft EIR that we found higlfly desirable. We look tonvard to
reviewing the final EIR when available and fonvarding any additional comments on the
tentative subdivision map at that time. We presume those cortunents would probably then
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 to 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 :1.-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 improvements for the road as set forth in the city manager’s report of
September 16, 199& We ,6’ould of course prefer that Pal0 Alto move toward the aame
standard that Portola Valley is using onthe portions of Los Trancos Road within the
town, that is, two 12 ft0 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 it standard can be
achieved.
With respect to possible tuture wideaing of the portion in Palo Alto, please bear in
mh~d that Portola Valley in approving the Blue Oaks subdivision, required the
developer to contribute 15% of the cost of improving the portion of Los Trancos 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 caged up~n; 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 ft. in height (Station 12+50). Station 20+00 shows combined
cut and fill 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 ma~xy trees and the creation of major
scars. We suggest that retaining walls be employed to significantly reduce the heights
of cuts and fills.
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 lots for septic ¯ "
tanks and drainfields.
The road is showr~ on map set A as having grades up to 18 % which we understand
exceeds the normal limit of 15% in Pa]o Alto. The design should be modified to meet
the city standard (the same standard as followed by Portola Valley) of 15%. This might
mean obtaining an eas.ement from an adjoining property owner so that ’~he road could
start at a location more distant from Los Trancos Road.
In 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 will 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. Patti Jansen, October 9, 1997 ’’ .....Page 2
4.Cluster Desi~
We have further reviewed the eight lot clustered alternative included in the draft ELR
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.
.5.Water Tank
We note the addition of a water tank in the easterly portion of the site. 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 augrne~ked 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.
Sincerely,
Geo~~n Planner .
cc, susan Whelan, Town Administrator
"Mr. Pmul Jensen, 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
P01o Alto, CA 94301
gilT 0 8 1997’
Com,"r, un;~ Envlrcn,-n,~,~t
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Re: Revised Tentative Map for 8-lot Los Trancos Road Subdivision 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 c0mm’ents oh the DEIR but in summary 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 intimsive 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 swale. 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 mitigate the impacts fr.o..r/),.’~..grading the main access road.
1. Storm Water runoff. I do not see thg.t ,fi!e Nap reflect, s,a response to the detailed
comments from the Santa Clara W~ig4" D,_j~trict datexI£~lt~. 30, 1997 page 2. "It
does not appear that the detention 1~3~irlj, fi the loca~.-.~.~bwn...will detain:,,~..7/i,./¯ ~,
,/.,..,
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 without 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~kStre~t, p~¢o~a V~ey, CA 94028
Palo Alto Department of Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
o
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 this 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
~EC~-
OCT -9 1 9Y
October 6, 1997
I INDIAN CROSSING
PORTOLA VALLEY
CALIFQRNIA, 94028 Ccmmur,~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 allr 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 mitigated 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. Development 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 Visually sensitive areas should be recorded on the
map and in the legal de.scription.
3. The main access road and also 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 Afro’s Open Space District
Guidelines. The revised map does not cluster development into a smaller
area. The revised map project 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 conunent and further
clarification of alternatives and the adequacy and feasibility.ok mitigations.
Respectf~illy submitted
Elaine Kay
President
Portola Valley Ranch Association
October 8, 1997
’City of Palo Alto Planning Department
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 propose0,,lots #1, #2, #5 and #6 are great
improvements. It appears that the revised tocation of the building envelopes on
these lots will go a long way toward reducin~ their visual impacts.
2. It is reassuring that the lot sizes have been reduced thereby minimizing the
likelihood of further attempts at subdivisions. It is 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
consistent 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 reviewing 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 the mitigation measures will help bring the project into
compliance with the City’s Plans and Policies?
Thank 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 94:028 (650) 851-9814:
Paul Jensen
Civy of Palo Alto Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Committee for Green Foothills
Los Trancos Road Subdivision
Tenative Subdivision Map Comments
page 1
Re:. Los Tranco~ Road Subdivision Revisions to Tenatve Subdivision Map
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Commi ~tee for Green Foothills is pleased to 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 gaurantee that
they will in fact be implemented.
Committee. for Green Foothills recommends the following changes ~o the
Tenatlve Map in order to ensure that these improvements will be realized:
1) Record bu.ilding 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 purpc~ of this space should b~i!it~ "~
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals" as defi~ed in the Draft Comprehensive Plan land use designation for "
Publicly Owned Conservation Land. L-9. As ~his common area is technically an
open space easement held in perpetuity by the City of Palo Alto as a condition of
¯ approva.l, the common area would fall under this land use designation~ and
uses and restrictions should be recorded on the Map. Impervious surface area
development should be prohibited. 2.2 of the CC& Rs discusses dedication of the
Committee ,for Green Foothi~
Los Trancos Road Subdivision
Tenative Subdivision Map Comments
.page 2
Common Area. Thb ~ction should include Ianguage that prohibits the
Assodat~on from ~amdedicati~g the land or selling it.to another party. Section 5.2
O of the CC&Rs discusses "Common Area Improvement~" but does not identiby
what "improvements" are permissible. For example, it is unclear whether .uses
such as stables, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses, ball fields, non-
native landscaping etc. would be permitted in the Common Area. Committee for
Green Foothills would be optx~sed to such uses in the designated Open space area
and requests that they bq~ specifically 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 P.hase-when
they will be almost certainly be more difficult to mitigate
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, ~-~
¯ ....
Camas Hubentha_1
Legislative Advocate
£0"d #E~8 EgG SIb OE :El &661-01-±30
To: Paul
From:Ellen Christensen
42 I. 7 Los P~os
Pzlo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: H- 494=1356; W-723-3249
FAX’. 725-0605
EIVL~IL: lu~e@leland.st~ford.edu
R.E; ArilXaga Tentative Map
Comments of the CC&R’s:
1) Co.mmon Area - Page 4 2.2 C Parking should not be an allowed use in the Private Open
Space common arga. (See also 7,11 page 22 reference to parking as a use of the Common Area)
2) Private Open Space, Pamel A- Lot 6- Page 6 This parcel is designed to provide access from
Lot 9 (Common Private Open Space’) to Public lands (that Arillaga is using as stone cutting?), It
appears to be an area subject to landsliding mad should not be used for access from new
subdivigion to lands b~low,
3) Partition o~ the Common Ar~a: Is the provision on page 7 allowing subdivision of the
common open space a loophole that circmnvrnts th~ city’s intention to prevent further
subdivision?
4) Common Area Improvements- page 17. What are these allowed to be (particularly in the
Open Space conunon area)?
5) Architectural Control - There is a discussion in this section of the homes as a "project."
(6.1 A "During the period of initial sales,." 7.1 Use of Lot: "..except that deolarant ..may use the
Project for a model home site or sites, and display m~d sales/construction office,,") It’these ere
not to be developed as individual lots, then not only are the homes subject to site and design
control, but the project must go through ARB approval.
Comments on the MakP:
1) A!l development, including accessory structures should be withir the designated building
sites,
2) Is the real right ofway for Tier~a Arboles proposed to be 42 feet wide? On the map it appears
as though this entire 42 foot area is proposed for grading. This is entirely too much grading and
resultant loss of trees for this road way,
3) Need more information about the proposed Storm ~Vater Detention FaoilRy? Is tl-,is
nec=ssary?
The drafi-~ge eas~,-’~ent looks lfi~e a road. (It looks the san~e on the map as Trapper Tr~l .
em~,’,Sency ~cce~s mad.) What is this propose! to be, how cons~’ucted ~:c,?
5) Emergency Access Road - This road coming up from Los Trmco~ Road is akeady a disaster.
I: should never have be~n cu~ and should have be~ abandon¢d and r~s~ored to nat~al terrakn
>’ears ago, It is a t~rrible candidate for an emergency access road as the hil!sid~ is subject to
failure from landslides for practically the whole length of the road to th~ top oft.he kil!. Ths
main emergency access road to this project should be Trapper Trail Road.
6) Through the developed parcels use, the existing graded road rather than the new Tierra
,,krobles Road. The new road zppears to end in the, illegally filled area of the site and in an
awkward aligmuent. The ill~gal fill, in any event, ne, eds to be re’moved sir~ there is no way ~o
asce.~t~2n that it was properly engineered.
7) There continue to be problems with the lotting pattern and some oft.he building sites. Lot 8
iv. 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 possibIe to ascerta~ the impact of the n~v building site for lot. 5 on the loss of trees.
8) There is still a clear advantage environmentally to requiring greater clustering around ~e
existing road through the developed area in order to r¢cluo¢ the ~rrpacts of long dr~veways,
building sites, and the new road on l’mbitat and visual resources.
9) Comment on the grading plan: What is t~ be the fate of the Haybale erosion control
"fixtures?" Are those staying in place?
I 0) As suggested by the EIR, all trees should be, located on the final map.
Novembez 5, 1997
To:,
From:Ellen Christensen
4217 Los Palos Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
494-1356
RE: Ardllaga/Los Trancos Road Subdivision
I have two gsnerA comments mud then some specific comments I would like to make. First, there
are a number o~ natural habitat and geologic hazard concerns around the siting of the access
roads m~d water tank. I would encourage you to make a site visit before actually acting on the
map issues before you. I think it is lmrd 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 map
stage- will be especially critical, because resolution of many of the serious impacts of this
development is being left to that final map stage, i.e. additional investigation and remediafion
measures for slope stabilization of the access roads, a final, detailed water study to confirm the
water tani( size, a detailed tree replanting pl~, the issue of % of impervious surface, etc.
Specific Comments:
1) Proposed impervious surface exceeds 3.5% of slte. 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 orditlance limits." The project should comply with the city requirements
and the map should reflect flint compliance. Impendous sin-face should not be left to the intent of
the project engineer.
2) Emergency Access Road: I am particulaflyconc.emed with the emergency access road which,
as proposed, goes through severa! significant landslide hazard areas, In addition to investigating
remcdiation measures for this road 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 staffproposed partial realignment] is a mess- the slopes are already slumping
(and severely) in some locations.
3) Water Tatfl¢: According to the staff’report, 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 that just partial burial and an
earth tone paint. Seven trees should be replanted in the vicinity to mediate the loss of the those
F’, 2
destroyed, and the tar~k itself should be screened wit.h shrubbery to the extent feasible, consistent
with access ~d safety requi~’em=nts.
4) Storm wa~er rur~-off: After consl~uction, and even with the proposed realignment of the main
access road and elimination of the storm ware: retention basin, there should be some deflector"
system that deals with stonu water runoff, so tha~ it is not flowing direcdy into L.os Traacos
Creek.
November 5. 1997
Architectural Re, dew Board
City 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 modifying 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 ver3;. " difficult for one person to read and understand all of it -- especially if one has not
spent a good amount 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 itseff. 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 if 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
if construction hadn’t been initiated after five ?’ears.
The size of the project should allow you to postpone your recommendations if you aren’t sure that ever?.~hing 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 city 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 property.
Respectfully Yours,
John Baca
P.O. Box8527
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 Valle~’, California 94028
Architectural Review Board
City 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 kno~vn 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 Trancos Road Portola Valley, CA 94028650-851-4487 650-851-9736 fax
RECEIVED
NO. ! O 1997
Departmem o; r,~.r,, ~,nq 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-lot 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 Adx
"s Conservation Committee, and San Marco
Committee.)
Palo Alto Planning Commission
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
~//~_ j .,~o.vember12,1997
Re: FEIR and Tentative Map - Los Trancos Road Eight Lot Subdivision, File #s: 94-
EIA-31, 94-Sub-5 and 97-ARB-190
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. We 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 AIto’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 PaloAItostandards. 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 these 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 also 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 impact.
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 1 5 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
729 2898 P.02/82
TOTAL P. 02
November i0, 1997
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 and 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 qorresponds 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 Variation 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 remain in 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 possible"
¯ "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,
Terilynn LangsevoBurt
1 Wintercreek
Portola Valley, California 94028