Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 199-08TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: vial: 5, 2008 CMR: 199:08 APPROVAL OF SITE AND DESIGN AND RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAIL~kTION FOR A NEW 886 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 810 LOS T1L~NCOS ROAD. ZONE DISTRICT: OPEN SPACE (OS). _~ E~ ~’>~ iTDAT!O!Tq. ,.~O~I ,,EN N Staff and the Planning and Transpoctation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the foiJ.~wing: 1.A Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the property located at 810 Los Trancos Road in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment C); and A Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design Review application to allow architectural and site plan revisions to the previously, approved project, including the construction of an ~86 square foot accessory, structure, with associated landscaping and grading changes, subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action (Attact:nnent B). ~ ~, ~1~-m-~v.,’,.GROL,: D Site Infomnation The 9.5 acre project site is located in the Palo Alto foothills. The site was originally created in 1979 as pm~ of a larger subdivision that created three lots totaling 29.6 acres. These lots, located at 820 Los Trancos Road, 830 Los Trancos Road, and the subject site, 810 Los Trancos Road, can be seen on the attached location map (Attacl~nent A). The subdivision was approved by City Council with exceptions allowing for the creation of the tt=ee lots that are all under the minimum required lot size of 10 acres in the Open Space (OS) district, as well as exceptions a!!owing for .a shared private access road so that the 820 and 830 Los Trancos Road sites can access Los Trancos Road. Project Description The proposed project includes the construction of a single-story, 886 square foot accessory strt.lcture to the site, already occupied by a 14 year old home with total existing impervious coverage (including building footprint, driveway, walkways m~d other areas) of 12,856 square feet (see Attachment G, page A1.3). The accessory structure will consist of a living room, two bedrooms, one bath and associated external patios and landscaping. CMR: 199:08 Pa~e 1 of 4 Open Space Development Critel-ia Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P.~MC) requires that the Open Space Development Criteria be used by the Plam~ing and Transportation Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria and an analysis of each are set forth in Attac!-maent D and are reflected in the findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attacl-m~ent B). Additional background information is included in the February 27, 2008 staff report to the Commission (Attachment E). Scope of Review The Council may approve, modify or disapprove the proposed plans submitted as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: (a)To ensure construction and operation of the use in a maturer that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. (b)To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. (c) To ensure that sound principles of enviromnental design and ecological batance shall be observed. (d) To ensure that thee use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On February 27, 2008, the Commission recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and DesiN~ application. The staff report and meeting minutes for the February 2"7, 2008 public hearing of the Commission are provided (Attachments E and F). These attactm~ents are also available on the City’s website and in City files for public review. During the hearing, no members of the public spoke to the Commission on this project. There were a few issues raised by the Commission during the hearing. The first issue was related to the color chosen for the windows and trellis detail of the proposed structure. \\,~ile these colors were chosen to best match the existing single-family home, the majority of the Commissioners felt that a more subdued color would be appropriate and added a condition of approval that the final color for this detail come back for staff review prior to issuance of the building permits. A second issue addressed by the Commission related to the preservation of the landscaping in the area of proposed work, as well as the logistics of the construction itself. There was concern that given the site constraints with regards to access, the landscaping located bel:ween the site and the shared driveway may become damaged dm-ing construction and that the construction itself may hinder access to the two other sites using the shared drive. A condition of approval was added requiring approval of a landscape preservation and maintenance plan as well as a construction plan by the Planning ~4aborist prior to issuance of building permits. Finally, the Commission addressed the issue of the site lighting, specifically the lighting of the foot path cormecting the proposed structure with the existing single-family home. A condition CMR: 199:08 Page 2 of 4 was added requiring staff to review and approve any pathway lighting prior to issuance of building permits. The Commission voted 5-2-0-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the revised Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) and adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attactvnent C). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan designation is Open Space/Controlled Development. The proposed project, which includes the addition of an 886 square foot accessory structure to a lot containing an existing single-family home, is consistent wifl~ the la~d use designation. 810 Los Trancos is in the Open Space District (OS), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P.~\4C) Chapter 18.28. Single-family uses with accessory facilities and uses are permitted in this zone district and the project would maintain the open space characteristics of the site. Compliance with the Open Space criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is outlined in the Record of Land Use Action (Attactm~ent B). RESOURCE IMPACT The addition of an 886 square foot accessory structure to an existing Open Space parcel containing a single-family dwelling is not expected to have any measurable resource impacts on the City. Staff time spent~on the development review of this project is fully recoverable ttvough fees charged to the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Initial Study, which reviewed the enviromnental issues as required by the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA), and an Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration were posted and circulated for public review. The 20-day public review circulation pe~-iod began January 23, 2008 and ended February 15, 2008. A copy of the enviromnental doculnent is provided as Attachment C. Key mitigation measures include: the requirement for the st~nacture to have complete fire protection measures; for City review and approval of all proposed grading and drainage of the site; and for mandatory tree protection measures for the important native oak woodland surrounding the structure. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: )N Assistant City Manager CMR: 199:08 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS B. C. D. E. F. G. Location Map Record of Land Use Action Mitigated Negative Declaration Open Space Desi~a Criteria Commission Staff Report of February 27, 2008 (w/o attachments) Commission Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2008 (Council only) Project Plans (Council only) COURTESY COPIES Lori Bockholt, Applicant Tim Brady & Kelly McGown, Property Owner CMR: 199:08 Page 4 of 4 83O 820 810 - 630 620 610 - 640 670 632 500 690 706 7O8 75O 712 714 - 720 ./ 607 Palo Alto 614 615 611 618 622 619 623 Attachment A Location Map This map s a proouci of the City of Palo Alto GIS ATTACHMENT B APPROVAL NO. 2008- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 810 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN 07PLN-00319 (Tim Brady & Kelly McGowan, OWNERS) At its meeting of , 2008, the Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto approved the Site and Design Review for modifications to residential property az 8!0 Los Trancos Road in ~he City’s Open Space District ("the Property"), making the fol!owing findings, determination and declarations: SECTION !. Background. The City Counci! of the City of Paio Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A.Bockholt Architecture, on beha!9 of Mr. Tim Brady and T~S Kelly McGowan Dromerty owners, have -~=cu=sted the City’s approval for a new 895 square foot accessory structure on the Property ("the Project.") B. Following Staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Project and recommended a~rova! on February 27 2008 T~e mlan~m~n~- ~ Transportation Commissions recommendations are contained in CHR: :08 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2.Environmental Review The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmenta! review under provisions of the California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmenta! impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning January 23, 2008 through February 15, 2008. The Environmental impact Assessment and Hitigated Negative DeciaraZion are contained in CHR: :03. SECT!ON 3. Site and Design Review Findings !. To ensure consurucu=on and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potentia! uses of adjoining or nearby sites. City standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site wil! be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the single-family uses !ocated in the immediate area. During construction, it is expected that there wil! be temporary impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts wi!l be offset by applicable City construction standards, such as restrictions on hours of construction, the City’s noise ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. As this site is !ocated in, and surrounded by, single- family uses, the a@d~_~ion of a sma77 accessory structure should not reduce the overall des~-~ab~7 i~y of t~ immediate area Accessory facilities and uses are expressly permitted in the Pa!o Alto munic~ma] Code and can be rou__@ on other nearby omen smace (OS) proper:ies, such as 6!0 Los Trancos Road. 3 To ensure ~..=~ sound principles or environmental ..... ob~erve~.des~g~ and ecological balance sha]] be ~~ This application was subject to an environmenta! impact assessment (E!A), ~n@- ~ it was determined Zhat wit~__ appropriate mitigation measures, there wi!l be no significant environmenta! impacts associated with Zhe proposed deve!opment. 4. To ensure that the use wil! be in accord with the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan. This project will be in compliance with the intent of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and applicable Open Space policies as they relate to development in the Open Space areas of the City. SECTION 4. Site and Design Approvals Granted Site and Design Approva! is granted by the City Counci! under Palo Alto Hunicipa! Code Section !8.30(G) .070 for application 07PLN-003ig, subject to t~e__ con@±~ons~=~’ of approva! in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval The plans submitted for Building Permit shal! be in substantia! conformance with those plans prepared by Bockholt Architecture titled "Brady/McGowan Guest House", consisting of 12 pages, dated October 15, 2007, revised October 22, 2007, January 31, 2008, and received February 5, 2008, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approva!. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Deve!opment. These conditions of approva! shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approva! Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning and Transportation Division !.The plans submitted for Building Permit shal! be in subszantia! conformance with plans received on February 5, 2008, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additiona! conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. The fol!owing conditions of approva! shal! be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2.Th@~.~approved building materials and co!or scheme shal! be shown on the building permit drawings for al! buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enc!osures and other landscape features. 3.Any oroposed exterior lighting shal! be sho~_ on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Pa!o Alto Planning Division. Al! lighting shall be minima! and shall direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. 4. All new windows and glass doors shal! be of a non- reflective ma~eria7 5.if during grading and construction activities, any archaeo!ogica! or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeo!ogist shal! visi: the site to address the ~ind. The Santa Clara County Medica! Examiner’s office shal! be notified to provide proper direction on :how to proceed, if any ~ ~ du~ng construction,Native American resources are encoun~ere@ construction shall cease immediately until a Native American eescenean~, a~Dointed by the Native American H=~= Commission of zhe State o~ California, is able to evaluate the site and make furZher recommendaZions and be involved in miZigation planning. 6.Ordinance Tree and Woodland Protection. The project proposes activity near the dripline of ordinance size oak trees, and requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan. As a mitigation measure, al! oaks and a@3ace~_z trees surrounding the project shall be mrotected with Type ! temporary fencing. 7. The fina! Plans submitted for building permit shall include the fol!owing notes on the relevant sheets: a. Sheet T-! Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan (http:/!www.cityofpa!oalto.org/environment/urban canopy.asp ), complete the Tree Disc!osure Statement and inspection(s) #i-5 shal! be checked. b. A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "~ measures l~n~:~ed in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-~and the __r_~amp_ove~ plans shall be im_miemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading m~ns irrigation mians, site plans and utility plans, Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enc!osing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) as shown on Detail ~o0~, Sheet T-~, and the City Tree Tecnn~ca! Manual, Section 6]-~5-Site Plans. d. Al! civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and uti]i~__~y plans civil and plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650- hr~or!s~A~y__. variance from this _procedure remuires_ City approval, please call (650) 329-244!." e. Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: "Utility trenching shal! not occur within the TPZ of a protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by the City crew or other contractors " Manea~ory tree construction apply as follows: protection practices during a. Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shal! be submitted to the Building inspections Division prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required ....~rning’ sign and remain ..... ~n place until fina! inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. b. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. c. The fol!owing genera! tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be , ~_. 7_re~!ne@: No storage of materia!, topsoi!, vehicles or equipment shal! be permitted within the tree enc!osure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shal! not be altered. Trees to be retained sha!l be iri~igated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure surviva!. 9. A Grassland & Oak Woodland Plan shal! be implemented and perpetually maintained as follows: a. Hydroseed grasses. Re-vegetate all soil areas that are disturbed and not a part of the forma! landscape areas near the buildings with the City approved Hydroseed Mix for the Los Trancos Watershed Area before late November of the year. A soi! building forbs shal! be p!anz~@ Zo build thin soils, where appropriate The !a__@sca~e ~!an shal! reflect the respective areas of planting. b. Sudden Oak Death Best Management Practices (SOD-BMP’~ shall be ~_mp_emen~e@’ ~’ ~ during construction and perpetually thereafter. This area is under quarantine by the County of Santa Clara The SOD-BMP’s shal! be ,~ --’ ~ ~_ . pro v !~e<l to current and future landscape or property maintenance contractors working on the property, http://wvs.~,.city.pa!o- aico. ca .usienvironmenc/defau!t. asp. I0.Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not restrict wildlife movement through the project site. Planning Staff shal! review and approve the proposed perimeter fence @es_gn prior to issuance of a building permit. !!. All site lighting changes associated with this approval, including the any footpath lighting, must be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to issuance of Building permits. !2. Final color and material details must be submitted to Planning Staff for._e~w~ ~ ’= and aporova]_ _ _mrior to issuance of Bu~:e~ng permits. T~IS is to include a revised co!or and materia! board that wil! be kept with the project file unti! completion of construction. !3.Prior to issuance of Building permits, the applicant shal! submit a landscape preservation and maintenance plan for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. This plan should __ _cons c_uccion,ee~a~_ the mrotection measures to be emmioy-ed during how materia!s/emuimment wil! reach the project site, and which landscaping wi!l need to be replaced upon completion of construction. Department of Public Works Engineering Division 14. A grading permit will be required i~ the work includes more than !00 cubic yards of cut and/or fil! outside of the building footprint, include a table on the site plan showing the quantities of cut and 15. The plan set must include a grading & ara!n~ge plan :~p~_<a by a _!censee professional that !nc!u@es existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must s!ope away from the house a minimum o~ 2%. Downspouts and sp!ashb!ocks should be _, ___SUC~_ asshown on this m!an as weT] as any site ~ra!n~g~ features ~ swa!es, inlets and outlets. !6. THe___ City’s_ ful7=-s±ze@: ~ "Pol!ution Prevention - _Yt’s Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Deve!opment Center or on our website. 17. The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall mrovide calculations of the existing and proposed immervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Workshee~ for Land Devel~mments form and instructions are available at the Deve!opment Center or on our website. Recyclin~ Division 18. P-~ior to issuance of building permit, project must submit Debris Management Plan to comply with PS~C Chapter 5.24- Requirement of salvage for reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris. Salvaging building materials for reuse, prior to demolition, is required. Fire Department !9..-_’~ fire sprinkler system shall be _mrov~-eea- ’ ~ ~ which meets ~n~ remuirements_ of NFPA Szanear@ ....No. 13 2002 ......mdltion (P~/~C!5.04. 160) . ’~ ~’:’~h Fire20. m]~ mitigation measures ~een~:~ed by Departmen~ to address fire hazards on this site must be incorporated into the design. Utilities Department 21. Applicant/Deve!oper must notify Utilities Engineering (Electric) ~ the proposed renovation/change of use has any impact on the existing electrical service size, voltage, or !ocation. if there are any changes, the Utilities will provide comments and/or conditions a!ong with any applicable fees and cost estimate. Water, Gas, Wastewater Prior to Submittal for Building Permits 22. _The applicant shall submit a completed Utilities Am~! icat ion/Load Sheet for each unit for City of Pa!o Alto¯’’~’n information requestedUtilities. The applicant must provide al! ~__e for utility se-~v~ce ~ema.~_~s (water in g.m m.) . 23. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the develomment and the public right of way including meters, and any other required utilities. Prior to Issuance~of Bui!din~ Permits 24. For contractor installed water mains or services, the applicant shal! submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department two copies of the installation plans of water utilities The contractor shal! also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant’s contractor wil! not be al!owed to begin work unti! the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. 25. The applicant shal! pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 26. Each unit, parce! or place of business shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. 27 ~n aD~rov~@ double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to ~he property line. Show the location of the double detector che~b assems~y on the plans, inspection ~ ~ne ut~ ~t~es cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 28. Al! utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Pa!o Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. S=C_iON 7 Term of Approval Site and Design Approval. in the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of City Counci7= approva!, the ammrova!s__ shall expire and be of no further force or effect mursuan~ to ma]o Alto Municima! Code Section !8.30(G) .080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk ~.mPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney ~T,~\TS P_ND DKhWTNGS Rm=ER=NC=D: !. Those plans prepared by Bockhoit Architecture titled "Brady/HcGowan Guest House", consisting of 12 pages, dated received February 5, 2008. Attachment C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI~_~IST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Site and Design review of a new 895 square foot second- dwelling unit. Zone District: OS. 1.PROJECT TITLE BradyiMcGowan Guest House 810 Los Trancos Road Palo Alto, California 2.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADD~SS City of Palo Alto Depm~ment of Planning and Communib, Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3.CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Paul Mennega Planner, Cib; of Palo Alto 650-617-3137 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADD~SS hori Boc~olt 1091 Peraha Dr Albany, CA 94706 5.APPLICATION NUMBER 07PLN-00319. 6.PROJECT LOCATION 8 ! 0 Los Trancos Road Palo Alto. CA Parcel Numbers: 182-36-029 The project site is located m the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the west of the Cib, of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara Counb,, west of 5~terstate 280. This properb’ is accessed via fl-ontage onto Los Trancos Road. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 7.GENEtL4L PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan desi~ation is Open Space/Controlled Development, per the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, which includes the addition of an 895 square toot second- dwelling unit to a lot containing an existing single-family home, is consistent with the land use desi~afion \xhich allows for second-dwelling units when accessory to a single-family dwelling. 8. ZONING S10 Los Trancos is in the Open Space District (OS), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28. The OS district is intended to: protect the public health, safeb’, and welfare; protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as a~-icultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conserxation or natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and properb, in the communib~ flom the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activib,; and; coordinate with and cant out federal, state, regional, counb;, and cib~ open space plans. Single-family uses with associated second- dwelling units are a permitted use in this zone disnict. 9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the addition of a single-sto~,, 895 square toot second dwelling unit or "guest home’ to the 413,!95 square foot site, already occupied by a 14 year old home with impervious coverage of 13,138 square feet. The guest home wil! consist ofa ~eat room, two bedrooms, one bath and associated external patios and landscaping. The location of the guest home was chosen to minimize the impacts of the development to the site with respect to ~ading and existing landscaping/screening elements. No trees are proposed to be removed during construction, and minimal ~ading will be needed as the chosen site area for the proposed structure is primarily a relatively flat garden. Materials and color have been chosen to reflect the natural SmToundings of the site, and will be compatible with the existing on-site improvements. 10.SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The 10 acre project site is located in tlne Palo Alto Foothills. The site is located amid areas predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. The property is bordered by the To~n of Portola Valley to the West, 820 Los Trancos Road to the East and South, and 856 Los Trancos Road to the North. The existing site contains a large single-family home on a relatively flat portion of the property. The proposed structure wil! occupy an adjacent relatively flat area that is currently being used as a prixate garden. Views from the portion of the site to be improved and constructed are to the West towards Portola Valley, specifically the valley occupied by Alpine Road. The site, along with 820 and 830 Los Trancos Road, is accessed from a private shared access lane that tracks east off of Los Trancos Road and climbs up to the three sites. 1 1.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES ¯County of Santa Clara, Office of the Counb’ Clerk-Recorder 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 2) 3) 4~ 5) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact si~nply does "Nonot apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A ~ Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specilie factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).l All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency, has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Sig~nificant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. - "’(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Ttnan Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Sig-nificant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than sig~ificant level (mitigation measures from Section 17. "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, prodam EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ELR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case. a brief discussion should identify the fol!owing: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identi~, and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identi~ xxhich effects from the aboxe checklist were within the scope of and adequately, analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by, mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Si~aificant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fi-om the earlier docmnent and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Infon~ation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)The explanation of each issue should identi~,: a) the siN~ificance criteria or tt=eshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) fine mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Chectdist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential si~aificant impacts are included. AESTHETICS Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on a public xiew or view corridor? C)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tTees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic higbxxay? d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regardin~ visual resources’? e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f)Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a,m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? Sources 1,2,5 MapL4,5 19- MapL4 1,2,5 Potentially Less Than Significant ~ Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X , 1,2,5 Potentially Significant Issues X .No Impact X X X DISCUSSION: The project site is located in the northwest portion of Santa Clara County on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the CiD, of Palo Alto. The topouaphy of the site consists of relatively steep slopes with the site sloping upwards fiom the Los Trancos Road adjacent properb’ line to the top, or rear of the property, accessed via the shared private lane. The site is heavily vegetated with oak woodland. The site is a single parcel developed with a single family home. The new secondary unit will be directly to the \Vest of the existing home, and wil! not incorporate any new driveway paving. The proposed structure will be seen from Alpine Road in Portola Valley. Site development will occur on the upper portion of the si~e, which has a natural slope down and away from the structure, so development wil! be potentially visible flom the opposite side of the valley occupied by Los Trancos Road. Taking advantage of an existing terraced and improved area of the site, the proposed structure will require minimal new ~ading, using moderate cut and fi!! tect-miques to attempt to minimize the height, visibility and impact of the structure relative to i~s sunoundings. The building materials will blend with the surroundings and the existing st~uctures. Natural stone (Chief Clifton) will be used for the retaining walls that are to be added. Muted, natural colors have been chosen for both the 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration siding and stucco that will constitute the majority of the wall areas that may be visible from both on and oft-site. A non-reflective roofing material, ’barkwood’ composite shingles have been chosen to help negate any sun reflection issues that may naturally arise at given times during the daylight hours. All materials have been chosen to ensure consistency in the choice of materials with the existing single-family home. \ery little new hardscape is being proposed with this project as this second unit will be accessed from the main 1,,ome by an existing pem~eable footpath. A small amount of impervious paving will be added, mainly for required access landings and the front entry. Overall, the project wil! not exceed the maximum impervious area permitted in finis zone district (see section I, Land Use Planning). Substantial vegetation, including native Oak trees, surrounds the project and helps to screen the building and minimal hardscape as viewed from off site. No trees or any other natural screening will be removed in association with this development, h~ addition to the vegetation, the structure will be sited on an existing flat area, helping to maximize the natural screening. The de\elopment of the site may result in light and glare generated from within the building and glazing on the building. With the Cib,’s standard condition of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project wilt not be significant. A detailed tighting plan that is sensitive to adjacent land use will be required as a condition of approval. The conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and that the source of light in not directly visible. The project submittal includes full architectural and landscaping plans, site sections, color palette, materia! samples, and story poles erected on site. The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Cib’ Council to ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated by the projects screening features which include large mature trees, such as Oaks, and a minimal presentation to the valley below. ?~litigation Measures: 5Iitigation Measure A-l: The project will be reviexx ed by the Planning Commission and Cib~ Council to ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated. ~Iitigation Measure A-2: All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-reflective material. 5Iitigation Measure A-3: .Q~y proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final consnuction drawings and shal! be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Plam~ing Division. All lighting shall be minimal and sl~all direct light down and shield light away from the sun-ounding residences and open space lands. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to a~icultural resources are si~aificant environmenta! effects, lead agencies may refer to the California A~iculmraI Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on a~iculture and farmland. 8t0 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Infornaation Resources Would tile project: a)Couxert Prime Farmland, Unique Farn~and, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use’? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract’.) Involve other changes in the existing euvironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland. to non-agricultural use’? SOUFCes 1,10 1,2-Map Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No hnpact X X X DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prodam of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for a~icultural use, and is regulated by the Wi!1iamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. C.AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would tile project: Conflict with or obstruct with implementation ~of the apvlicable air q~ aliW plan (198.~ Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2~00 Clean Air Plan)? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or prNected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate mauer of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM~0); ii.Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of ~ne parts per n~llion (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CAL~’E4 modeling, Sotll-Ces 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Thau Siguificant Impact ~0 Impact X X X X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Infornmtion Resources i Sources c) Would the project: x~ hich would be per%rmed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day o1" 100 tons per year; or b) project n’affic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D~ K or K or would cause LOS ~o decline to D. K or F~ or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Kesul[ in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant %r which the project region is non-a~tainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualky standard (including releasing en~ssions which exceed quanfitafi~ e thresholds for ozone Expose sensiuve receptors ~o substantial leve~s of ~oxic air contaminants? i. Probability of contracting cancer ~Br Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million ii.Ground-level concena’afions ofnon- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index grea~er fi~an one (1) %r ~he MEI Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction en~ssion control measures reconm~ended m the Bay ,4 tea ,4 ir ~ualiO’ Management District CE~A Guidelines? Potentially Significant Issues Poteutially Significaut Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Siguificaut Impact ~0 Impact X x x 1...~X DISCUSSION: The Cib’ of Palo Alto uses tl~e Bay Area Air Qualib, Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air qualiD; impacts, as follows: Construction hnpacts: The proposed project will involve ~ading, paving, and landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures. Long Term Impacts: Long-tem~ and operational project emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected to result in a siN~ificant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-qualib, impacts related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant. Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or il! people who can be adversely affected by air quality problems. The project is on 10 acres and is not immediately adjacent to dense housing or other sensitive receptors. The project is not expected to have a si~aificant impact. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-003! 9 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed project, a residential use, does not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The project is not expected to not create objectionable odors when the project is complete. The project would be subject to the following Ci~’s standard conditions of approval: The %llo\~ing controls shall be implemented %r the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: ¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. ~Al! trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of t’reeboard. A!l paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the consnuction site shall be swept and watered daily. Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a demolition permit. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ~Iitigation Measures: None required. D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or tlnough habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural comanunity identified in local or regiona! plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of tlae Clean Water Act (including, but not tin, ted to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) tl~ough direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption~ or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologica! resources, such as a tree preserx ation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? Sources M apN 1 MapN 1 1,2,5,9,1 i 2 ’ Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting information Resources e) Would the project: Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Con-m~unity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Uuless B’I itigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X DISCUSSION: \\"bile the pro, ject site is within a rural area that generally supports sensitive habitat, the project site does not include wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is the site adjacent to any wetlands, waterway, or other sensitive habitat. In tact, the project site is a small area directly adjacent to a previously approved home that is currently occupied by, a planted garden with associated ten-acing. As this area is currently improved and used as a garden, and thus is not an area that would be considered as in a ’natural’ state, it is not expected that any local flora and fauna would be negatively affected by the proposed development. The proposed prqect is not expected to remove any of the existing trees as a result of construction. A standard condition of approval would ensure the project meets the Cib,;s tree protection requirements. Chapter 8.10.050(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that protected trees shall not be removed from a single family residential lot (not in connection with a subdivision) unless the trunk or basal flare of the protected tree is touching or within the building footprint. However, if removal is allowed because the t~ee trunk or basa! flare is located in the building footprint7 the-tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure D-l: Ordinance Tree and Woodland Protection. The project proposes activib, near the dripline of ordinance size oak trees, and requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As a mitigation measure, al! oaks and adjacent n-ees smTounding the project shall be protected \xith Type I temporary fencing and the following measures. Mitigation Measure D-2: The final Plans submitted for building pelna:it shall include the following.notes on the relevant sheets: Sheet T-1 Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan (htro:,"iwww.citvofpaloalto.or~ienvironmentiurban canopy.asp),complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and h~spection(s) #1-5 shall be checked. b.A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet %1 and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on ~ading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type I fencing around ProtectedTDesi~ated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) as shown on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d.All civil plans, ~ading plans, inigation plans, site plans and utility..* plans civil and plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected: "Regulated Tree--before worMng in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-"..-M~y variance from this procedure requires City Arborist approval, please call (650) 329-2441 ." 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration Ufilib, plan sheets shall include the %llowing note: "Utilib, trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of a protected uee. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by the City crew or other contractors." M itigation Measure D-3: Mandatory nee protection practices during construction apply as follows: a.Tree Protection Statement. A written statement from the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, ~-ading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning si~ and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any; publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of" the Palo Alto Municipal Code. c.The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ~ound under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Mitigation as follows: Measure D-4: A Grassland & Oak Woodland Plan shall be implemented and pm~etually maintained a. Hydroseed grasses. Re-vegetate all soil areas that are disturbed and not a part of the formal landscape areas near the buildings with the City.., approved Hydroseed Mix for the Los Trancos Watershed Area before late Novembe>of-the .,,,ear. A soil building forbs shall be planted to build thin softs, where appropriate. The landscape plan shall reflect the respective areas of planting. b.Sudden Oak Death Best Management Practices (SOD-BMP"s) shall be implemented during construction and perpetually thereafter. This area is under quarantine by the CounD~ of Santa Clara. The SOD-BMP’s shall be provided to current and furore landscape or propel%~ maintenance contractors working on the property, htm:iiwww.citw.palo-alto.ca.us/environmentidefauh.asp. Mitigation Measure D-5: Perimeter fencing shall be desi~ed to not resnict wildlife movement tt-nough the project site. Planning Staff shall review and approve the proposed perimeter fence design prior to issuance of a buildip.g permit. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. a) E.CULTU1L-~L RESOURCES Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Directly or indirectly destroy, a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicai resource or site or unique Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Thau I No Siguificant Impact Impact 1 x b) 1 ~- ’~ XMapL8 c)l~- MapL8 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration Sources Potentially Poteutially Less Than I NoIssues and Supporting Information Resources !Significant ~Significant Significant ]Impact Would the project: ] Issues I]MitigationUnlesshnpact !]Incorporated geologic feature?l i d)Disturb any human remains, including those I 1,2- interred outside of fornaal cemeteries?i MapL8 !X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and_.or 1,2 California Register~ or listed on the City’s MapL7 i X Historic Inventory?I t’)Klin~nate inaportant exarnples of major periods !Xof California history or prehistory? DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that fine site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensinviD~ zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction, 31itigation Measures: 3[itigation Measure E-l: If during ~ading and construction activities, an), archaeological or human remains are e~qcountered, construction shal! cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara Counb, Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Nati\e American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recomnaendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Significance after Mitigation: Less than si~~ificant. F.GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources a) Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, i~!jury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as See below delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ~he area or based on other substantial evidence of a l~aown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1,2,8 X ~o Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?2-MapN-X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration lo,s iii) Seismic-rela~ed ground failnre, including 2- liquefaction?MapN5,8 ix’)Landslides?2- MapN5,8 5.12 c)5.12 d) e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil:’ Result in substantial siltation’? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse’? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (I 994), creating substantial risks to life or properb? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting tl~e use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cam~ot be mitigated tlnough theuse of standard engineering desig!)_~nd- seismic safety teclmiques? MapN5,6 MapN5,6 6,12 X X X X DISCUSSION: Construction of the new building and site improvements will require extensive N-ading and will increase the amount of impervious surface area. The Geotect~ical Investigation Report prepared in May, 1998 for the area of proposed construction on the pr~ec~ site has been certified by the original author of this report as being applicable to the CutTel-g project. Conditions of approval will require the submittal of this report with all applicable building permit applications. The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to strong ~-ound shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ~-ound failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No tcnown faults cross the project site, therefore f:mlt rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be required to comply with the provisions of the most cunent Unifom~ Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and propmTy in the event of an earthquake. The Cib.’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final ~-ading and drainage plan subject to review by; the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any, ~ading and building permits. Blitigation Measures: 3!itigation Measure F-1 : Implementation of the construction tectmiques and erosion control measures required by the Cib’ of Palo Alto Public Works Departn~ent, would reduce the geotectmical impacts to a less than significant level. Such measures include: ¯A ~-ading permit will be required if the work includes more than 100 cubic yards of cut and!or till outside of the building footprint. Include a table on the site plan showing the quantities of cut and fill. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration The plan set must include a ~-ading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professiona! that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent N-ades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, inlets and outlets. Significance after Mitigation: Less fl~an significant. G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Would the project: at Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment tl~’ough the routing nansport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials’? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment tluough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into.fl~e. environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acute!\ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schoo!? d)Const~q.~ct a school on a property that is subject to hazards fiom hazardous materials contan~ination, emissions or accidental release’? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the enviromnent? For a project located \~ ithin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two ~Nles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? ht Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency, response plan or emergency evacuation plan’? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are 1,2,5 t9 I MapN9 t MapN7 2-MapN7 Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact X X X X X Impact X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration k) intermixed with x~ildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1,5,12 X DISCUSSION: The project is within a high fire danger area due to the dense vegetation in the area. To help mitigate the risks of exposure to wildland fires, a mitigation measure, detailed below, has been included requiring that the sn-ucture be sprink.led for fire protection. No 1,~aown hazardous materials are currently being used, stored, or disposed of on or adjacent to the project site. In addition, the land has not been previously used for a~-iculture or any other operations that would require the use, storage or disposal of hazardous materials on the site. BIitigation Measures: .Mitigation Measure G-l: A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 2002 Edition. (P:%MC15.04.160) 5litigation .Measure G-2: All mitigation measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire hazards on this site must be incorporated into the desi~. Significance after Mitigation: Less fl’,an sig.mificant. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Would the project: a)Violate any water qnality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantia!lv with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground~x ater table lexel (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or plam~ed uses for which pern~its have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,2,5,12 , MapN- Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X X d)1,5,12 X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration e) 1,2,5,12 of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which xx ould exceed the capacity of existing or plmmed stormwater drainage systems or proxide substantial additional sources ofpotlmed runoff2 Otherxxise substantial13 degrade water quality? Place housing x~ithm a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a t~deral Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X ~i ! ,5, !2 X -g)1,2- MapN6,X 12 h)1,2- MapN6,X 12 i) MapN6, N8,12 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death revolve flooding, including flooding as a resuh of the failure of a le\ee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X MapN6,X N8 ~ Result in su’eam bang: instability?1,6 !X DISCUSSION: Groundwater ~as not encountered in the exploratory borehole that was drilled to a maximmn depth of 25.5 feet by. GeoForensics. However, ~oundwater conditions at other locations or other times, or different weather conditions may diff’er fl-om those encountered in the test borehole. Groundwater seepage may exist within the zone penetrated by the boring, especially at shallow depths during periods of heaxT rain or late in the winter. Based on the information to date, construction during the dry, season is not expected to adversely affect (or be affected by,) ~oundwater. Additionally, City of Palo Alto Public Works requirements, which will be implemented prior to issuance of the Building Pem~it (included in section F of this declaration as mitigation measure F-l), will help to negate negative impacts of the development on existing drainage patterns. Therefore, expected impacts will be less than significant 3iitigation Measures: None required. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Poteutially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project:Issues Unless hnpact Mitigation Incorporated a}.....Physically divide an established con-ununitv?1 -’) i!X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,1,2,3,5 {X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting hfformation Resources Would the project: Sources policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, !ocal coasta! program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan’? Substantially adversely change tl~e type or intensity of existing or plamaed land use in tlae area? Be incompatible wifl~ adjacent land uses or with the general character of fl~e snrrounding area.. including densib, and building heighr? Conflic~ with established residential, recreational, educational, religious~ or scientific uses of an area? Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) 1,2 X d) 1,2,5 X e) 1,5 X 1,2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide inaportance_!]t’anNand) to 1,10 X non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan desi~ation for this site is Open Space/Controlled Development and the Zoning Desi>mation is OS (Open Space). Single family dwellings and second-dwelling units are a permitted use in the OS District. Immediately surrounding land uses are residential uses on large parcels. Given the proposed desig-n o,f tl~e project, which minimizes potential effects to the sun-ounding uses (residential), it is compatible with all adjacen~ development. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use desi~ation of ©pen Space The proposed architectural and site changes comply with the Site and Desi~m~ development regulations and conform to the intent of the Open Space zone district. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the design promotes the following policies for development in the Open Space, including: Policy N-6: Tba-ough implementation of the Site and Desig, n process and the Open Space zone district regulations (PAMC 18.28), minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. The Conaprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria, Policy, N-7, will be used by the Plalming and -iranspormtion Commission, .;M-chitecture Review Board and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. The project is consistent with the thirteen City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria as follows: The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadwa),s and public parUands. As much as possible, development should be sired so it is hidden from view. The proposed construction wilt not be xisible from any identified viewsheds (map L-4 of the Palo _alto Comprehensive Plan). The project is located directly above Los Trancos Road, and due to the slope of the properb~ up and away from Los Trancos Road, as well as the significant natural landscaping, visibilib’ from Los Trancos Road should be minimal. Sig-nificant screening vegetation, including many mature trees, will remain on the down-slope 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration portion of the site, which should also help to minimize visibilib, from Alpine Road. It is not expected that this project will be visible fiom any public parklands. Developmem should be located awayfom hilltops a~d designed m ~ot exte~d above the ~earest ridge li~e. The %otprint of the home is not located on top of the "knoll nor on top of the ridge. ¯ Si~e and s~’ucmre desigJz sl~ould rake i~o consideration impacts on privacy a~d views of neighboring propel’ties. Given the proposed location towards the side of the properb, away from the neighboring properties, the slope of the hill, and the native existing vegetation, there will be no impacts on the SmTOunding properties in terms of privacy or views. Developme~t should be clustered, or closely grouped, iT~ rela~io~ ~o ~he area sm’roundi~g it ~o make it less co~icuous, mi~dmize access roads, a~d reduce fi’agme~tado~ of ~mmral habitats. The project will utilize an existing access road that serves the single-family home located on-site, as wel! as two neighboring properties. The site location was chosen primarily due to two tSctors; first, the existing site ~-ading, which will allow %r cons~-uction with only minor uade improvements, and second, to help minimize visibilib’ of the structure from off-site. While it may have be possible to locate the s~cmre closer to the existing single-family home, the nade-offwith the factors mentioned above led to the cmzent choice of location. Bull[forms m~d la~dscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Buildil~g lilies should follow the /i~les office zermi~z, a~d trees a~zd bushes should appear ~mtural fi’om a dism~ce. The landscape plan calls for leaving a!l existing natural landscaping and trees to remain. The project proposes minor ~ading to provide terraces that will roughly follow the contours of the site. The simple roof fomas follow the natural topo~-aphy, and the house steps back in the direction of the slope. £xis~i~g t~ees ~tirh a circumference of 37.5 i~ches, measz~red 4.5feet abo~e the grozmd level, should be pres’e~’ved cmd integrated imo the si~e desig~. Exism~g vegetation should be ~emi~ed as much as possible. No trees or ~oundcover wii! be removed during consa~ction. The applicant wi!l be required to work with City staff, including the Cib, ~Mborist, to ensure that existing trees and landscaping are maintained and that new landscaping will be consistent with the existing. Cu~ is e~mouraged wheJ~ iz is ~ecessmy for geotech~zical smbilib" m~d m e~zable ~he deveIopme~t ro blend i~o ~he ~mmral topogaph)’. Fill is generall3 discouraged a~d should ~ever be distributed withi~ g~e dripli~es qfl exisd~g ~rees. Loca~e developme~t to miz~imize g~e ~zeed for gadi~g. The project involves making use of an existing hill cut, performed in 1998 to help mitigate a s!ope instabiti~, issue, at approximately !12’. Additional cut wil! be perfomaed to lower the finished floor of the project to !09’, which will help mitigate visibili~ of the new structure as well as minimizing the amount of fill needed at the down slope end of the s~-ucture. The project takes advantage of existing retaining walls that were previously installed to help ensure geotectmical stabiliD, of the slope. The proposed retaining wall enhancements are desired to complement and re-enforce these previous improvements. The applicant will work closely with the project arborist and Ci~ .~borist to ensure that the Nading will not impact any existing trees on and offthe site. 2o reduce the need for cut m~d fill m~d m :educe pote~tial rm~off large, flat expaJzses of impe~a4ous smfaces should be avoided There are no large expansive areas of impervious surface proposed with this project. Impervious surfaces will be mainly used for retaining walls, required landings and concrete steps. Semi-pervious surfaces are proposed for the terraces. The project utilizes existing paths and does not propose any major impervious additions other than the structure itself. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page !7 Mitigated Negative Declaration ¯Buildi~gs should use natmal materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the SmToundings. The project also includes a non-reflective roofing material. Lm~dscapi~g should be nazive species dmt require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to suucmres, fire remrdm~t plan~s should be used as afire prevention technique. The proposed landscaping incorporates a large number of native species plantings which will minimize the need for irrigation. The conditions of future approval wil! ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape desig-n. Exterior lighli~g should be low-intensity and skielded fiom view so it is not directly visible fom off-site. The exterior lighting will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that off- site lighting impacts are minimized. Access roads should be of a rural rather thm~ mbm~ character. (Sm~Mard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with d~e foothills em’irom~em.) The project will not involve the addition of any access road. Impervious Coverage: Section I8.28.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) limits impervious area and building coverage in the OS zone disn-ict to ~.z/o of the project site. The project site is 41~,195 square feet allowing for 14,462 square feet o~" impervious area. The impervious coverage of the existing residence including the driveway is as follows: Kxistin~ Covera-e Footprint & Hardscape 12,826 square feet The ne\x project would add the following impervious area to the site: New Coverage: Fooq)rint Hmdscape 895.1 square feet 710.5 square feet £xis~i~g 12,826 square feet Total 14,431.5 square feet The project as proposed meets all applicable zoning and comprehensive plan regulation, and will thus have no impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. J.MINEIL4~L RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potential y Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: IssuesMitigation Unless Impact Incorporated a)Result in the loss ofavailabilky of a known 1,2 I X 810 Los Yrancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issnes and Supporting Information Resources b) VVould the project: mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state’? Result in the loss of availability of a !ocally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan’? Sources Poteutially Significant Issues Poteutially Significant Unless Mitigation Inco,’porated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This desi~ation sig-nifies that there are no ’2g ’2 in t!~e area. The DMG has not classified the Cib, for other resources. There is no indicationa ~_I e ~.ate resot.lrces i’..q the 2010 Comprehensixe Plan tha~ there are !ocally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the Ci~ of Palo Alto. 31itigation Measures: None required. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting hfformation Resources Sources No Impact Would the project: 1,2,.5 Potentially Significant Issues Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels m excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies’? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels’? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project2 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip~ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significaut Impact X 1,5 X c~ 1,5 X d) 1,3,5 X e) X !,2 X 1,5 X 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? h!Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area,, thereby causing the 1,5 X Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i)Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn 1,5 X currently exceeds 60 dB? j)Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?1,5 X k)Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other 1,2-Map Xrooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or N3.5 greater? 1)Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors 1,5 X bv !0 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: The project site is located withir~ a-rural area and is not adjacent to any urban noise sources. The proposed project, once complete, would not increase existing noise levels over the established ttneshold for the area. addition, fine area is not within any public or private airport zone. The construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise Ievels in the viciniD, of the project site. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and ~ading and noise of constanacting the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once completed. !ong-tenn noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction hours prohibited Sundays and Holidays would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less tl~an significant levels. The project would be subject to the Cib*’s standard conditions of approval regarding noise. The location of the project within a rural area, setback from any particular sensitive use as well as Los Trancos Road via the existing shared driveway, and project noticing requirements should prevent construction noise from exceeding nuisance levels. Project related traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets over what is cunently experienced, especially on the nearby Alpine Drive which would be the most likely access road to Los Trancos Road from nearby Interstate 280. Mitigation Measures: None required. L.POPULATION AND HOUSING 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Sonrces Potentially Significant Issues 1.2.5 Induce substantial population grox~th in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, tl~’ough extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the consnucfion of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsexx here? Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs’? Cumulatively exceed regional or local population prqiections? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X b) 1,5 i X ~X e)] 1,2 X No Impact DISCUSSION: The project will add a second-dwelling unit to a lot containing an existing single-family home. State Housing Element law requires that localities provide their "fair share" of the region’s housing needs. The Association of Bay.’ Area Governments (.’&BAG)~i~a~ determined tha’~ Palo Alto will need to add si~aificant numbers of housing units to meet State laws and to help reduce ~he imbalance between jobs and housing. This project, which involves the addition of a small housing unit, will have a slightly positive effect on both the City’s imbalance between jobs and housing and on densib,. This project is expected to have a less than significant impact, and is supported by the Ci~, of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Policy, H-2: "’Policy I-t-2. Mentij.i; and implement a varieb; of strategies to increase housing densio~ and diversiO, in a?propria~e loc’a~ions. Emphasize cmd e~mourage ~he development of affordable and attainable housing. " The expansion of infrastructure to this site will not induce substantial =mowth in the pr~ect area because it is limited by current zoning. ~ litigation Measures: None required. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Would the project result in substantia! adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govermnental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of Sollrces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless 5’litigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Inl’onnation Resources Would the project: which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of tile public serx ices: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Sources 1,2,!2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significaut Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No hnpact X X X X DISCUSSION: Adherence to codes will minimize the potential damage and risk from fire and other hazards. However, existing laws represent minimum standards and do not safeguard against all hazards. The development on the site is likely to increase the demand for fir_e.~gnd police service by, an incremental amount. However, the police and fire departments have sufficient resources to accommodate modera’ce ~-owth within the Ci)’. In addition, local schools will not see a measurable increase in demand as a result of this project. Therefore, the increased demand will not result in the need to expand existing facilities or construct new facilities. 3 litigation Measures: None required. N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources No Impact Would the project: a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require tile construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environnlent? 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X DISCUSSION: 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed, adding a small second-dwelling unit, should have a less than si~itScant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of recreational facilities. Furthermore, the undeveloped portions of the property would remain as private open space. To help ensure that the impacts of the additional living unit to the Cib,’s housing stock will be less than significant, the Cib’ collects Development Impact Fees for parks, libraries and community centers, totaling an estimated $3000.00, $780.00 and $269.00 respectively. The final De\’elopment Impact Fee calculation will be p,erformed at the time of building permit issuance. As these tees are standard with any increase in densib;, and will apply here, no project specific mitigation is required. 51itigation Measures: None required. O.TRA,~ SPORTATION AND TtL&FFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Would the project: a) 1,5 Cause an increase in traffic whicl~ IS substantial in relation to the existing naffic load and capacib, of the sn’eet system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity’ ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the counb’ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in naffic levels or a chan~,e in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design t?arure (e.g., shm~ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle t~cilities)? Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below kevel of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay t~r the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X b) 1,5 X c) 1,5 X d) 1,5,12 X e)1,5,12 i X f~1,5,12 X g! !,2,12 .X h) 1,5 No Impact X 8!0 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Poteqtially Significant Issues Potentially Siguificant Unless Less Than Significant Impact No hnpact Mitigation Incorporated 1,5 X 1,5 1,5 k) m ) 1,5 1,5,12 by 0.01 or more? Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critic!l movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critic!l VC value to increase by 0.01 or more? Cause a fi’eeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a fi’eeway segment already operating at LOS F? Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Enviromaaent (TIRE) index by O. 1 or more? Cause queuing impacts based on a con~parati\ e analysis between th~-~{~si~n queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback quenes at project access locations; queues at mm lanes at intersections that block tl~’ough traffic: queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. Impede tbe development or function of plmmed pedestrian or bicvcle facilities? Impede the operation of a transit system as a resuh of congestion? Create an operational safety hazard? X X X X n) 1,5 X o)1,2,5 X I i~)1.5.12 t X t DISCUSSION: The pro_iect site is not located on a desi~aated emergency route. Located on a shared ’spur’ srive of of Los Trancos, the site is relatively difficult to locate, but should not introduce any new direct impacts (i.e. a new driveway) onto Los Trancos Road. In addition, the project wil! not generate air or significant automobile traffic and will not cause or contribute to lmown traffic hazards. Given the location of the site in a rura! area, emergency access is limited. The proposed new second-dwelling unit will be accessed via a footpath from the main dwelling unit, and will utilize the existing driveway and garage structure CU~Tently used by, the main dwelling unit, a zoning code requirement. This addition is not expected to either increase or decrease the accessibili~ of the site. Implementation of the proposed project will result in truck nips to haul excavated materials off site. Construction crews and equipment will also increase the daily trips on Los Trancos Road and Page Mill Road. Consnuction traffic impacts would be tempormT and truck nips would generally occur during off-peak hours. 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration Residual Impact: The proposed project will not si~aificantly increase traffic in the local area. However, construction of the project xx ould result in localized congestion due to truck traffic associated with consnuction. Construction traffic impacts xxould be tempormT and are not anticipated to substantially disrupt peak traffic hours. (Less than si~aificant impact) 5!itigation Measures: None required. P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project:Issues Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated a) 1,2 X b~ c) e} 1..2 Exceed wastexxater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treamlent facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental ef/~cts? Require or result in fl~e construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project flom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed’? Resuh in a detern~nation by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing conm~itments? Be served by a landfill wid~ suf~cient pern~tted capacity to acconm~odate the prqiecffs solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid xx aste? Resuh in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1,2 1,2 X X X X 1 X g)1 X h ) 1 X DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on exisung utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or ine,ficient manner, as it will be utilizing the on-site existing services. Standard 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities that currently serve the existing single-family residence would be shared for use by the proposed second-dwelling, which would not be expected to cause a si=m~ificant impact. 3iitigation Measures: None Required. Q.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Would the project: a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviromnent, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining lex els, fl~’eaten to eliminate a plant,or animal conm~unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exan-tples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatix ely considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in com~ection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)’? c)Does the project have environmental effects \x hich xxill cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ! ,2,5,11 1,2,5 1,5,12 Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless M itigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X DISCUSSION: The proposed new residence will not substantially de~-ade the surrounding environment, impact protected trees, impact wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important examples of culmra! histow or pre- history. The project would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the environment. When considered with other current projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project is not anticipated to result in cumulatively significant impacts. SOURCE REFERENCES: !.Project Planner’s 1,mowledge of the site and the proposed project 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance 4.The Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards 5.Project Plans, Bocld~olt Architecture, submitted on October 15, 2007. 6.Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Slope Mitigation Work. 810 Los Trancos Road, prepared by GeoForensics, May 1998 Cali%mia Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, ht~p:iiwww.oet?ha.ca.gov/public_infoifacts/trafldds.html, accessed September 19, 2007 8.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 9.Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 10. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prodam, 2004. 1 !. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2001 12. City of Palo Alto Departmental Review. PREPARED BY Paul Mennega, Plmmer 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on enviroument, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. the I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviroument, there will not be a significant effect in this case becanse revisions in the project have been inade by or agreed to by the project proponent. A 3lITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the euvironment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal staudards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT.~L IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ! find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIX~E DECLAI~ATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is reqnired. X Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date 810 Los Trancos Road 07PLN-00319 Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT D OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 810 Los Trancos Road / 07PLN-00319 Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that the Open Space Development Criteria be used by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria are set forth below, followed by analyses of the project’s compliance with them: Tl2e developme~ skozdd ~o~ be visually inuusive f’om public roadwco,s aml public pa~klcmds. As much as possible, developme~t st2ould be sited so i~ is ]~ictcte~ from view. The proposed construction will not be visible fiom any identified viewsheds (map L-4 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The project is located directly above Los Trancos Road, and due to the slope of the property up and away fiom Los Trancos Road, as well as the si~aificant natural landscaping, visibility from Los Trancos Road should be minimal. SiNaificant screening vegetation, including many mature trees, will remain on the down-slope portion of the site, which should also help to minimize visibility from Alpine Road. It is not expected that this project wilt be visible from any public parklands. Developme~ slzozdd be located away fom killtops a~zd desig~zed to ~ot extend above the ~zearest ridge li~2e. The proposed accessory structure is not located on top of a l~aoll nor on top of a ridge. Site m~d s~rucmre design should rake i~zto co~zsideration impacts o~ privacy and views of ~eighbori~g properties. Given the proposed location towards the side of the property away from the neighboring properties, the slope of the hill, and the native existing vegetation, there will be no impacts on the surrounding properties in terms of privacy or views. Developme~z should be clustered, or closely grouped, i~z relatio~ to the area surroundi~g it m make it less co~2spicuous, minimize access roads, m~d reduce fiagme~tatio~ qf ~mmral kabim~s. The project will utilize an existing access road that serves the single- family home located on-site, as well as two neighboring properties. The site location, given the existing site Nading, will allow for construction with only minor ~ade improvements, and will help minimize visibility of the structure from off-site. While it may have be possible to locate the structure closer to the existing single-family home, the trade-offwith the factors mentioned above led to the current choice of location. o Built forms and la~zctscape forms should mimic the tmtural topograplo,. Building lines should follow the li~zes of rhe terrains, a~d ~rees and bushes should appear natural from a disra~me. The landscape plan calls for leaving all existing natural landscaping and trees to remain. The project proposes minor grading to provide tenaces that will roughly follow the contours of the site. The simple roof forms follow the natural topogaphy, and the house steps back in the direction of the slope. 810 Los Trancos Road Page 1 7. 10. 11. E.risd1~g t~ees ~,~i~h a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the grozmd level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be ~etai~ed as much as possible. No trees or ~’oundcover will be removed during construction. The applicant will be required to work with City staf~ including the City Arborist, to ensure that existing trees and landscaping are maintained and that new landscaping will be consistent with the existing. Cut is encozzraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stabil#y and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The project involves making use of an existing hill cut, performed in 1998 to help mitigate a slope instability issue, at approximately the 112’ contour. Additional cut will be performed to lower the finished floor of the project to 109’, which will help mitigate visibility of the new structure as well as minimizing the amount of fill needed at the down s!ope end of the structure. The project takes advantage of existing retaining walls that were previously installed to help ensure geotecl-mical stability of the slope. The proposed retaining wall enhancements are desi~ed to complement and re-enforce these previous improvements. The applicant will work closely with the project arborist and City Arborist to ensure that the ~ading will not impact any existing trees on and offthe site. To reduce the need for cut and j~ll and to reduce potential runoff la~e, jTat expanses of impervious smfaces should be avoided. There are no large expansive areas of impervious surface proposed with this project. Impervious surfaces will be mainly used for the building footprint, retaining walls, required landings and concrete steps. Semi-pervious surfaces are proposed for the tenaces. The project utilizes existing paths and does not propose any major impervious additions other than the structure itself. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural, in earda tone colors that will blend with the surroundings. The project also includes a non-reflective roofing material. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire prevention technique. The proposed landscaping incorporates a large number of native species plantings which will minimize the need for i~Tigation. The conditions of future approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape desi~a. Exterior lighting should be low-intensiO’ and shielded f’om view so it is not direc@, visible f-ore off-site. The exterior lighting will be reviewed by the Plamaing Commission and City Council to ensure that off-site lighting impacts are minimized. Access roads should be era rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, guttel; and concrete sidewalk are usually inco~sistent with the foothills environment.) The project will not involve the addition of any access road. 810 Los Trancos Road Page 2 A~l~shment E PLANNING &TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLAN~ING A TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Paul Melmega, Planner DEPARTMENT: Plamfing and Community Environment February 27, 2008 810 Los Trancos Road [07PLN-00319]*: Request for Site and Design review of a new 895 square foot accessory structure. Enviromnental Review’. An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: Open Space (OS). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C) and approve the Site and Design Review application for a new accessory structure in the OS (Open Space) Zone District based upon the Open Space Design Criteria in Artaclvnent D, the Site and Design findings in Attachment E and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attaclm~ent B). BACKGROUND Site Information The 9.5 acre project site is located in the Pa!o Alto Foothills. The site was originally created in 1979 as part of a larger subdivision that created three lots totaling 29.6 acres. These lots, located at 820 Los Trancos Road, 830 Los Trancos Road, and the subject site, 810 Los Trancos Road, can be seen on the attached !ocation map (Attactm~ent A). The subdivision was approved by City Council with exceptions allowing for the creation of the tMee lots that are all under the minimum required lot size of 10 acres in the Open Space (OS) district, as well as exceptions allowing for a shared private access road so that the 820 and 830 Los Trancos Road sites can access Los Trancos Road itself. The site is located amid areas predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open City of Palo Alto Page 1 space. The property is bordered by the Town of Ponola Valley to the West, 820 Los Trancos Road to the ]East and South, and 856 Los Trancos Road to the North. The existing site contains a large single-family home on a relatively flat portion of the property. The proposed accessory structure will occupy an adjacent relatively flat area that is currently being used as a private garden. Views from the portion of the site to be improved and constructed are to the West towards Portola Valley, specifically the valley occupied by Alpine Road. The site, along with $20 and 830 Los Tranc0s Road, is accessed fl-om a private shared access lane that tracks east off of Los Trancos Road and climbs up to the tt~ee sites. Proiect Description The proposed project includes the construction of a single-story, 895 square foot accessory structure to the 413:!95 square foot site, already occupied by a 14 year old home with total existing impervious coverage (including building footprint; driveway, walkways and other areas) of 12~856 square feet (see Attachment G: page A1.3). The accessory structure will consist of a great room: two bedrooms: one bath and associated extemat patios and landscaping. The location of the guest home was chosen to minimize the impacts of the development to the site with respect to grading and existing landscaping/screening elements. No trees are proposed to be removed during construction, and minimal ~ading wil! be needed as the chosen site area for the proposed structure is primarily a relatively flat garden. Materials and color have been chosen to reflect the natural surroundings of the site, and will be compatible with the existing on-site improvements Accessory Facilities When determining the use classification of a detached structure on a residential property, such as the subject Open Space site~ Planning Staff have used the existence of cooking facilities to detennine whether a structure is considered a full ’second dwelling’ unit versus a simple structure that is accessory to the main dwelling. A facility that does not contain cooking facilities would be incompatible with permanent dwelling, and such a structure would have significantly less impact on the immediate site and surroundings when compared to a full second-dwelling unit. As proposed., the ~95 square foot structure is considered ’accessory’ to the existing single-family home, as it lacks a cooking facility. While not required to meet the second dwelling unit zoning regulations found in t8.28.070(a), an analysis has been completed showing that the accessory structure will substantially meet the zoning regulations that would apply to a more intensive second-dwelling unit (Attaclm~ent F, table 2). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Development Visibility Site development wi!l occur on the upper portion of the site, which has a natural slope down and away from the structure, so development will be potentially visible from the upper reaches on the opposite side of the valley occupied by Los Trancos Road. There should be minimal visibility of any new development from off-site (see Attactm~ent G, sheet A1.2). The project takes advantage of an existing terraced and improved area of the site, and of the natural contours of the site and landscaping. The existing single-family home is !ocated in an area that effectively blocks most of the proposed accessory structure from direct line of sight. The proposed accessory structure City of Palo Alto Page 2 will require minimal new grading, using moderate cut and fill tectmiques to attempt to minimize tl~e height, visibility and impact of the structure relative to its surroundings. The building materials and colors will blend with the surroundings and the existing structures. Natural stone (Chief Clifton) wilt be used for the retaining walls that are to be added. Muted, natural colors have been chosen for both the siding and stucco that will constitute the majority of the wall areas that may be visible from both on and off-site. A non-reflective roofing material, ~barkwood’ composite shingles have been chosen to help negate any sun reflection issues that may naturally arise at given times during the daylight hours. While not required for accessory swucmres, the materials chosen appear to ensure consistency with the materials on the existing single-family home. Impervious Areas Very little new hardscape, other than the footprint of the building, is being proposed with this project, as the accessory structure will be accessed from the main home by an existing permeable footpath that currently runs to the garden area (see Attaclm~ent G, sheet AI.1). A small amount of impervious paving will be added, mainly for required access landings and the front entry. A detailed break-down of impervious areas (both existing and proposed) can be found on sheet A1.3 of Attachment O. Overall, the project will not exceed the maximum impervious area pemfitted in this zone district and the project will comply with all applicable zoning regulations (Attachment F) ........... Open Space Development Criteria Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P,QMC) requires that the Open Space Development Criteria be used by the Plamfing and Transportation Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria are set forth below, followed by analyses of the project’s compliance with them: The developme~t should ~ot be visually i~rrusive fom public roadways a~d public parkla~ds. As much as possible, developme~r should be sized so i~ is hidden fom vie~. The proposed construction will not be visible from any identified viewsheds (map L-4 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The project is located directly above Los Trancos Road, and due to the slope of the property up and away fiom Los Trancos Road, as well as the significant natural landscaping, visibility from Los Trancos Road should be minimal. SiNaificant screening vegetation, including many mature trees, will remain on the doxvn-slope portion of the site, which should also help to minimize visibility from Alpine Road. It is not expected that this project will be visible from any public parklands. Developmem should be located away fom hilltops a~zd desig~zed to ~ot exte~d above the ~earest ridge li~ze. The proposed accessory structure is not located on top of a knoll nor on top of a ridge. Site a~d szructure design should take into consideratio~z impacts on privacy and views of neighbori~g properties. Given the proposed location towards the side of the property away fi-om the neighboring properties, the slope of the hill, and the native existing City of Palo Alto Page 3 vegetation, there will be no impacts on the surrounding properties in terms of privacy or views. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relatiorz to the area surroundi~zg it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roacts, and reduce f!’agme~tation of natural habitats. The project will utilize an existing access road that se~wes the single- family home located on-site, as well as two neighboring properties. The site location, given the existing site ~ading, will allow for construction with only minor grade improvements, and will help minimize visibility of the structure fiom off-site. While it may have been possible to locate the structure closer to the existing single-family home, the trade-off with the factors mentioned above led to the cmTent choice of location. Built forms and landscape forms sl~ould mimic ~he natural topography. Building lines should follow the li~es of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear namra! fi’om a dism~zce. The landscape plan calls for leaving all existing natural landscaping and trees to remain. The project proposes minor ~ading to provide terraces that will roughly follow the contours of the site. The simple roof forms follow the natural topo~aphy, and the house steps back in the direction of the slope. Existi~g ~rees with a circumference of 3 7. 5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved a~d integrated i~to the site design. Existi~g vegetation should be retai~wd as much as possible. No trees or ~’oundcover will be removed during construction. The applicant will be required to work with City staff, including the City ~borist, to ensure that existing trees and landscaping are maintained and that new landscaping will be consistent with the existing. 7.Cut is ezzcom’aged when it is necessaz3, for geotechzzical stability and to enable the developmezzr ro blend into zhe zmmral topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should ~zever be distribuzed within rhe driplines of exisd~g trees. Locate development to minimize zhe need for grading. The project involves making use of an existing hill cut, performed in 1998 to help mitigate a slope instability issue, at approximately the 112’ contour. Additional cut will be performed to lower the finished floor of the project to 109’, which will help mitigate visibility of the new structure as well as minimizing the amount of fill needed at the down slope end of the structure. The project takes advantage of existing retaining walls that were previously installed to help ensure geoteclmical stability of the slope. The proposed retaining wall e~lancements are desi~aed to complement and re-enforce these previous improvements. The applicant will work closely with the project arborist and City Arborist to ensure that the ~ading will not impact any existing trees 011 and off the site. To redz~ce the need for cut and fill a~d to reduce potential runoff lmNe, flat expanses of impervious smfaces should be avoided. There are no large expansive areas of impervious surface proposed with this project. Impervious surfaces will be mainly used for the building footprint, retaining walls, required landings and concrete steps. Semi-pe~wious surfaces are proposed for the telraces. The project utilizes existing paths and does not propose any major impervious additions other than the structure itself. City of Palo Alto Page 4 BuildiJTgs should use ~zatural materials aJzd earth to~e or subdued colors. Natural building materials in eai~ch tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the sunoundings. The project also includes a non-reflective roofing materia!. 10.Laz~dscapizTg should be ~mrive species tkat require little or ~o irrigation. Immediately ac!jaceJ~ ~o struc~ztres, jTre retarda~t pla~7~s should be used as a j~re preveJ~ioz~ ~eck~ique. The proposed landscaping incorporates a large number of native species plantings which will minimize the need for inigation. The conditions of future approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape desiNa. 11.Exterior ligk~i~zg skould be low-i~te~zsi~y a~d skielded from view so it is Jzot directly visiblefi’om off-site. The exterior lighting will be reviewed by the Plamaing Commission and City Council to ensure that off-site lighting impacts are minimized. Access roads shozdd be of a rural ra~her ~haJ~ urbaJz character. (Sra~dard curb, gutter, a~Td co~cre~e sidewalk are usual@ iJ~consis~ez~t with ~he foothills e~n, irom~en~.) The project wilt not involve the addition of any access road. A copy of these criteria cma,also be found attached as Attacl-maent D. Site and Design Findings Section 18.030(O).060 of the PAMC requires the Commission to review the project and reconamend approval or changes such that the project is compatible with the fo!lowing Site and Design findings: To eJzsure cozzstruc~ion az~d opera~iozz of the use iz~ a mamzer that will be orderly, harmoJzious, a~zd compatible with exis~iz~g or potential uses of a@oizzizTg or nearby sites. City standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site xxill be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the single-family uses located in the immediate area. During construction, it is expected that there will be temporary impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts will be offset by applicable City construction standards, such as restrictions on hours of construction, the City’s noise ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the attached draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attactmaent C). To e~tsure the desirabilio; of im,estme~t, or ~ke conduct of business, research, or educa~io~ml activities, or o~her authorized occupations, i~z the same or acljace~zt areas. As this site is located in, and surrounded by, single-family uses, the addition of a small accessory structure should not reduce the overall desirability of the immediate area. Accessory facilities and uses are expressly permitted in the Pato Alto Municipal Code, and can be found on other nearby open space (OS) properties, such as 610 Los Trancos Road. 3. To ensure ~hat sozmd prizTciples of em,irozzmez~ml design azzd ecological bala~ce shall be City of Palo Alto Page 5 obser~.’ed. This application was subject to an enviromnental impact assessment (EIA), and it was determined that with appropriate mitigation measures, detailed in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attaclvnent C), there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. To e~sm’e tl~a~ ~]~e use will be ir~ accord wi:]~ the Palo Alto Comprehe~si~,e Pla~. Per the aboxe discussion this project will be in compliance with the intent of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and applicable Open Space policies as they relate to development in the Open Space areas of the City. A copy of these findings can also be found attached in Attachment tE. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The General Plan desi~aation is Open Space/Controlled Development, per the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, which includes the addition of an 895 square foot accessory structure to a lot containing an existing single-family home, is consistent with the land use designation. Zonin~ 810 Los Trancos is in the.Open Space District (OS), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PA_MC) Chapter 18.28. The OS district is intended to: protect the public health, safety, and welfare; protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preser~ing and protecting its i~aerent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprax\ 1 and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and; coordinate with and can’y out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans. Single-family uses with accessory facilities and uses are permitted in this zone district and the project would maintain open space characteristics of the site. Zoning compliance tables are attached to this report as Attacl-maent F. TIMELINE tf the Commission recommends approval or approval with conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval is not required for developing single-family residences (or accessory facilities) in the Open Space district. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to enviromnental review under provisions of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and staff determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public City of Palo Alto Page 6 review begirming January ,_~, 2008 tl-uough February 15. 2008, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment C). Smnmarized below ar.e the mitigation measures, which can be found in the Mitigated Negative Declaration in sections A tl-n’ough G: Mitigation Measure A-l: The project will be reviewed by the Plmming Commission and City Council to ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated. Mitigation Measure A-2: AII new windows and giass doors shall be of a non-reflective m ateri al. 5Iitigation Measure A-3: Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Plarming Division. All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. Mitigation Measure D-l: Ordinance Tree and Woodland Protection. The project proposes activity near the dripline of ordinance size oak trees, and requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As a mitigation measure, all oaks and adjacent trees surrounding the project shall be protected with T?.,pe I temporary fencing. ~litigation Measure D-2:. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following notes on the relevant sheets: a. Sheet T-1 Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan (http:iiwww.citvofpaloatto.or~ienviromnent/urban canopy.asp), completethe Tree Disclosure Statement and .h~spection(s) #t-5 shall be checked. b.A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. c.Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on gading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) as shown on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Teclmical Manual, Section 6.35- Site Plans. d.All civil plans, ~ading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans civil and plan sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected: "Regulated Tree-- before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650- ". Any variance from this procedure requires City Arborist approval, please call (650) 329-2441 " e.Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: "Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of a protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by the City crew or other contractors." Mitigation Measure D-3: Mandatory tree protection practices during construction apply as follows: City of Palo Alto Page 7 a.Tree Protection Statement. A written statement fi’om the contractor verifying that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division prior to demolition, ~ading or building permit issuance. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. b. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged dm-ing the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. c.The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Mitigation Measure D-4: A Grassland & Oak Woodland Plan shall be implemented and perpetually maintained as follows: a. Hydroseed grasses. Re-vegetate all soil areas that are disturbed and not a part of the formal landscape areas near the buildings with the City approved Hydroseed Mix for the Los Trancos Watershed Area before late November of the year. A soil building forbs shall be planted to build thin soils, where appropriate. The landscape plan shall reflect the respective areas of planting. b.Sudden Oak Death Best Management Practices (SOD-BMP’s) shall be implemented during construction and perpetually thereafter. This area is under quarantine by the County of Santa Clara. The SOD-BMP’s shall be provided to current and future landscape or property maintenance contractors working on the property. http:/iw~.av.citv.palo-alto.ca.us/environment!default.asp. Mitigation Measure D-5: Perimeter fencing shall be desi~ed to not restrict wildlife movement through the project site. Planning Staff shall review and approve the proposed perimeter fence design prior to issuance of a building permit. Mitigation Measure E-l: If during ~ading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, consm.lction shall cease immediately until a Native ,:Mnerican descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. Mitigation Measure F-l: Inaplementation of the construction teclmiques and erosion control measures required by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than siN~ificant level. Such measures include: City of Palo Alto Page 8 A grading permit will be required if the work includes more than 100 cubic yards of cut and/or fill outside of the building footprint. Include a table on the site plan showing the quantities of cut and fi!!. The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent ~ades must slope away from the house a n~inimmn of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any, site drainage features such as swales, inlets and outlets. Mitigation Measure G-l: A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 2002 Edition. (PAMC 15.04.160) Mitigation Measure G-2: All mitigation measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire hazards on this site must be incorporated into the design. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Attact~nent C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Draft Record of Land Use Mitigated Negative Declaration Open Space Design Criteria Site and D~sign Findings Zoning Compliance Table Site Plans (Commissioners only)* *Prepared by Applicant; all other attaclm~ents prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: Lori Bockhout, applicant Tim Brady, & Kelly, McGown, Property Owner PREE%RED BY:Paul Mermega, Plainer REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD .~d:’PROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 9 Attachment F 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 ..-I- 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 DD 34 35 36 3,-7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Comnfission Verbatim Minutes February 27, 2008 Excerpt 810 Los Trancos Road*: 07PLN-00319 - Request for Site and Design review of a new 895 square foot second-dwelling unit. Enviromnental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: Open Space (os). Mr. Paul Menne_~a, Planner: Yes we do. Good evening. First let me quickly, say con~atulations to Commissioner Fineberg on your appointment. It is a pleasure to bring this project before you this evening. This application involves the Site and Desi~ review of new 895 square foot accessory, structure located on nine and one-half acre site at 810 Los Trancos Road. Site and Design is required for this project due to the site’s location in the City’s Open Space or OS District. Just to clarify for both the Commission and any interested lnembers of the public there is a minor error in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that indicates the site is ten acres in size, which is not the case. If I could take a minute to direct the Commission to the documents provided at places this evening starting with the digital photos. I have labeled them as A. You can see here in photo one I have tried to outline the area. This is a photo taken from Los Trancos Road and I was able to zoom in with the digital photo and find the story poles, just the very tops of the western side of the site story poles. This was onty view that I was able to actually see the proposed structure anyavhere from offsite on publicly accessible areas offsite. If you go to photo number two it shows the view of the site from the shared driveway that 810, 820. and 830 Los Trancos Road use. That is looldng down towards the sites and you can see Dave Dockter there. Photo tl:n’ee on the next page shows the view from the top of the proposed site. I have climbed down the hill here and am looking back up towards the shared drive. You can see that the hill continues further up to\~ ards the ridge and there is ample screening in this direction. Photo nnmber four shows the view again flom the same spot just rotating around facing west now. You can see again there is si=maificant screening looking westward and then down the slope. I am not sure you can see ant.’ other structures along the far ridge there from the site. Chair Holman: In number four where are the story poles? Mr. Menne~a: The story poles would be to nay right. I am standing at the top of the proposed area essentially so I am standing just to the side of the story poles. Page 1 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 2~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 D~ 34 35 36 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 Then the final photo again just rotating around and you can see a couple of the story poles there 3 on the right hand side of the photo. This is looking again I guess you would call this direction 4 probably northeast. This is looking toward the primary residence. Again you can see the 5 significant screening fiom the primary residence over towards the right as well as you get a sense for the contours of the land here as it drops away and then picks back up where the primary residence is located. That is it for the photos. The second detail that I have there that isn’t labeled, I would have labeled it B if I had remembered to, is the light fixture. I know there was a question fiom Commission about the five lights that are the exterior lighting of the structure. They are shown on site plan or sheet A3.1 of the plans for your reference. You can see that the light fixture that has been chosen is the top light fixture there and it is directing the light completely down. So hopefully this will not allow any light to be projected offsite fi’om these small external illuminations. The final at places document is again more information, it is hopefully labeled C for you, is the City of Palo Alto permit activity for 810 Los Trancos Road just giving you a little backgound. The original single family home that is currently located there was built in 1992. It is the top highlighted item. The lower item that I have highlighted there is the 1998 ~’ading permit and retaining wall that was done in the area where this accessory structure is proposed to be located. In terms of the enviromnental review a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which examined the impacts of this development, was circulated for a 20-day public review period as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The public review period ended February 15 of this year and no comments were received. Finally, this application has been reviewed by the necessary City departments to ensure compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with all applicable regulations. City Staff requests that the Plmming and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Site and Desi~ based on Open Space criteria and Site and Design findings found in the provided Staff Report. Thank you. Chair Holman: Tlnanlc you. Commissioners, are there clari~dng questions? Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: "~’es. Paul, I just have one clarifying question for you. What is the difference between the Staff Report that came in our packet and your revised one that was at our places? What changed? Mr. Menne~a: There shouldn’t be a revised one. Commissioner Sandas: I’m sony. Never mind. \Ve will ask that question of the next person. Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1! t2 13 14 !5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 "7 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 ~"7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Fineber~: Paul, on the handout at places, 2A, item number four, ifI understood you correctly you said you are standing with the story poles to your right. So this is the view of what they would see but it is also the view of who is seeing the site, is that correct? Mr. Mermen, a: I am trying to describe it as best I can. Vice-Chair Garber: Perhaps looking at A1.3 might help her. Mr. Menne~a: Yes. Commissioner Fineber~: I guess what I am wondering is what is that hill with those trees in a straight line? If you are standing there is that who would be looking back and seeing the site? Mr. Menne_~a: Correct. As Commissioner Garber pointed out on sheet A1.3 if you look there imagine me standing where it mentions rear patio landing/stair. I am standing right in that area so to the right of me is the proposed site and straight ahead you can see some of the screening that exists onsite. Then that hill that you can see in the distance that is the other side of the valley that is below that Los Trancos Road is in and there doesn’t appear to be any development over there but as vou mentioned there what looks like neatly planted landscaping or some kind of grove of trees over there. So this would be looking offsite. This would be looking fiom the proposed structure offsite.~_So_it is hypothetically possible someone obviously on the hill with binoculars looking back would see me there taking a picture. So that is the view. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, clarif~dng question? Commissioner Tuma: Is there a material board or color board? Mr. Menne~a: I apologize I forgot to mention that. I made a note and didn’t even read it. There are material samples and colors as well available here. If you could just pass those down that would be great. Chair Holman: While that is happening I have a clarifying question too. Sheet five of your 2A. Not to get picky here but I do have a question. \Vhat we are looking at here looks like to me fence posts and then to the right is a very thin what I presume is story pole. Is the one to the right the story pole? Mr. Menne~a: Correct. When you walk down from the shared drive there is a fence there, a good neighbor fence or a fence to maybe keep animals from eating the garden that is currently located where the flat area that this proposed structure is going in. The poles that you see there, the thin poles to the right, the taller poles, those are the leading edge of the story poles that will be the most northwesterly corner of the structure. Those are the poles that you see. Chair Holman: So I guess my question is if you were looking at this flom a little bit of a distance these look like to me they would be indeed very, very difficult to see. So when you are taking your photographs and in the first page I tN~¢ it was you are outlining where the story Page 3 1 3 4 5 10 11 14 17 t9 20 ~4 ~7 40 41 4_3 44 4i poles are, were you conI~dent that that is what you could see? ha other \~ ords, this is not obvious and a building is going to be more obvious than what these indicated. Mr. Menne_~a: Of course. I did take a number of photos. There were only certain areas where the main dwelling was even visible. So I based my photos primarily on can I see the main dwelling and can I see the area where story, poles should be. I took a number of photos and then I was able like you said to zoom in on those with great maNaification and I really could see the story poles on the photo that I provided. On the other photos you can kind of make it out fiom this picture number five. You can see there is a gap in the trees here to the right m~d to the left it is complete coverage but there is this gap. So every~vhere that I could see that visible gap from Los Trancos was where I tried to take pictures from and was only able to get the one shot of them. It is of course possible you could see this from another angle. I didn’t spend hours checking. Chair Hotman: That is helpful, tha~c you. Commissioner Lippert. Okay, Commissioner Keller do you have a clarifying question? Commissioner Keller: Yes just a follow up to what Chair Holman said. Does it make sense to in the future for story poles to pnt some multi-colored flag at the top ofd~em so it would be easier to identify them and distinguishing flom the background foliage? Mr. Menne_~a: I believe we do have some flexibility in our requirement for the story, poles so that could something we could consider in the future. Commissioner Keller: Thartk you. I thi~fl,: that would be helpful. Chair Holman: Any other clari~dng questions? Seeing none do we have an applicant here to ma!,:e a presentation? I have no card. Would you go ahead and introduce yourself and speak and you will have 15 minutes. Then you wilt need to fill out a card for the Secretary,, please. Thank you. Ms. Lorv Bockholt. Architect. Albany, CA: Just to clarify a little bit farther along the viewpoints along Los Trancos and Alpine Road. Those roads are covered with or lined with trees on each side. So really, you only get .... I have driven up and down and I think I found tba’ee spots where there is a driveway or a tem~is court or a parking lot along those lanes but it is just right at these very minute places along those two roads where you do get those views front the photo~aph. I just wanted to be clear about that. We did choose this site because it was a flat site, which was nice for us. We didn’t have to do a lot of cut and fill. We didn’t have to disturb the natural vegetation. We didn’t have to remove any trees. We also chose it for the privacy and the low visibility fiom the main roads. Then when we did the accessory structure on the site we attempted to inte~ate it very well with the natural hillside. So as you can see in the sections and the elevations the house is sited low and then there are additional terraces that step down and follow the contours of the site itself. Page 4 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1i l! 13 14 15 !6 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 !6 27 ~8 29 3O 3] 32 34 35 36 D/ 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 So hopeff~lly what the idea was that these would be planted with natural vegetation covered with the chief Clifton, which you have a sample of’.. and then over time that would weather and it would fill in and it would inter’ate itself with the site very easily and integrate the structure into the site as well. We were aware of all the desi~ guidelines in Open Space and we are aware that a lot of care needs to be taken in this zoning area. So we attempted to follow every guideline that was given to us and tried to minimize the impact of the site by choosing the site, by choosing the size, by how we sited it. We kept it as far back to those existing retaining walls as possible with still trying to get some natura! southern light from that end. I thinl,: that is it for my presentation. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, question for the architect? \."ice-Chair Garber: Ln the photo with the story poles there is a string attached. Does the string represent the E blind or at the top of poles? Ms. Bockholt: \Ve chose the elevation of the ridge and then made the walls the height of the ridge. So it would be actually even lower at the wall. \."ice-Chair Garber: What is the pitch of the rooF?. Ms. Bockholt: It is four and 12. \,’ice-Chair Garber: So it might be as much as four feet? Ms. Bockholt: Tlv-ee or four feet lower at where the story poles are, yes. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: One of the things that you had mentioned was you chose this site in order to minimize impact on the existing site. I was wondering given the location of this particular portion of the site within the context of the whole site has a plan been devised as to how they are going to do the construction itself without impacting the properly? The access to this site is down a small little winding pathway or possibly from the street above but it looked like it was 1,:ind of somewhat isolated. It was unclear to me as to how you were going to get building materials and trucks in there. Ms. Bocld~olt: They have talked to a contractor and he says that he can lower down equipment and machinery down from the main driveway. So it is not that far off from that shared driveway. They feel that is how they are going to - that is their plan to access it that direction not along the footpath. Vice-Chair Garber: Lower by crane. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 !0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 2~ 24 25 26 27 ~0 31 32 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Bockholt: Not by crane but hitch it to something up there and bring it down onto the site. That is what they said. Vice-Chair Garber: Slide it down? Ms. Bockholt: Yes, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Just to clari~ on that a little bit more. So when they are sliding stuff down, big pieces of equipment and lumber, etc., how much of the landscape are they taking out to do that? I think the question that we are trying to get at is whether or not the building of this little accessory building will impact the landscape during the building process. Ms. Boctd~olt: I haven’t clarified that with the contractor so it is hard for me to answer that. I 1,mow there are no mature trees that we would have to pull out or disturb the roots of those. I honestly don’t know how much it is going to impact. Chair Holman: Curtis, did you have something to add? Mr. Williams: I just wanted to sav these are good questions. I don’t know if there is something like this already but we could add a condition to develop a construction plan to run tlnough us to show how that access occurs, and to minimize vegetation impacts in particular, or any kind of erosion or something, and to require the restoration of that area after they are finished. It would certainly be an appropriate thing to do. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am looMng at drawing AI..3. It looks like your access to the site that you are talking about is approximately where the anow says four-foot wood fence. Is that what you are talking about? Ms. Bocld~olt: Yes. Commissior~er Keller: To the left of where it says side yard stepping stones there is a dot with a circle and I am wondering what that is. .Ms. Bocl<holt: It is a tree. Chair Hohnan: It probably would be helpful if we could put the plan on the overhead if that is not too much trouble. Then v,e can all be on the same page. Commissioner Keller: I am wondering are you plarming to do things to protect that particular tree when you are doing the const~qaction and the lowering? Page 6 1 Ms. Bockholt: We haven’t and it seems like we can stay far enough away from the drip line. 2 We are protecting some trees that we are doing some work near, some live oaks. If you look to 3 tl~e right of that same note we are showing a fence around a N’ouping of three trees that we are 4 required to protect. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I think that is reasonable. ~Ms. Bockhott: I thiN,: we could stay sufficiently away from that one tree. We wouldn’t have any 9 reason to get close to that one. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: \Vould you have any objection to a protective tree fencing around that 12 particular tree so as to ensure no problems during the construction? 13 14 Ms. Boctd~olt: If we are required to do so, sure. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Could you also tell me a little bit more about the distance involved? It is 17 sort of hard for me to tell the distance from that label that says four-foot wood fence and the left 1 $most part of the construction you are talking about. I don’t know tl~e scale of this drawing. 19 20 Ms. Bockholt: It should be a 16~ inch scale and I haven’t measured it. 22 Commissioner Keller: It looks like it is about 20 feet, roughly. 23 24 Chair Hoh-nan: Can you indicate for the rest of us which tree you are refening to’? 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Yes. 27 28 Ms. Bockholt: It seems like it extends far enough up, I guess westward away. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: What kind of drop is that? It is hard for me to see this drop. 31 32 Ms. Bockholt: It is fairly, steep. I don’t know the percentage. 34 Commissioner Keller: It looks like it is 133 feet is the top of that. 36 Ms. Bockholt: Fourteen feet from that one tree. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: And it comes down to about 119 feet or so at the edge. Is my math right? 39 So it is about 14 feet over about a span of 20 feet? 40 41 Mr. Menne~a: That is correct. It is relatively steep. I slid down there. 42 43 Ms. Bockholt: It would be hard to walk down. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: So then there is a potential issue when doing the consmtction of soil 46 stability under where the stuffwas slid down that steep slope has some concerns. Page 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 "~1 99 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Bockholt: Sure, yes. I believe that there are soil erosion requirements. Am I right? Commissioner Keller: Yes there is. Ms. Bockholt: That are in place and the contractor would be required to adhere by, is that true? Mr. Menne~a: That is correct. Commissioner Keller: Is there anything about when the construction would take place so it doesn’t occur during a rainy season so that before the soil erosion forbs were put in that you wouldn’t have erosion during a rainstorm? Mr. Menne_~a: I don’t believe there is a condition in the Record of Land Use that indicates the timeframe when construction should be permitted. I thirfl~ that would fall into the similar category to the condition or the question that came up earlier leading to how the construction is actually going to take place in terms of locating materials and equipment onsite. So I thii9< that could probably be rolled into a similar plan that would be reviewed by Public Works. Conamissioner Keller: Not only the plan for construction but also the timing of the construction. Mr. Menne~a: Correct. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Williams: IfI could just add to what Paul said also as far as that tree goes. It is shown on page A1.2 that is a seven inch oak tree and we do have while it is not a size that would be automatically protected under the ordinance we do have conditions of approval that require trees that are shown on the plan to be retained, to be protected, and not dump trash on within a drip line and all that kind of stuff. So there are already some tree protection conditions that will help as wel!. If we have a condition related to construction we can call that out specifically. Chair Holman: I have two questions for you. On sheet A1.3 under proposed it says obviously, proposed but then it has an ’e’ in front of both building structures and in fi’ont of paved paths and walkways. Is that an error? Ms. Bockholt: That is an error. That is my error. Chair Holman: Okay,. Then on other minor one just so we are looking at the same thing here. Proposed says 886 square foot accessory unit and this Staff Report says 895. It is a minor point but records like this should be consistent and I don’t M~ow which is accurate. Ms. Bocl&olt: I believe this is correct but I don’t 1,mow if Paul has calculated it different. Chair Holman: It is really, insi~aificant it is just a matter of consistency. Then I have one other question for you. The Swiss coffee trim is that the same color the existing house is painted? Page 8 1 2 3 4 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Bockholt: As close as we can get, yes. Chair Holman: So the City Attorney knows where I am going. Bear with me for just a minute. Is the existing house since it was built 14 years ago or so is it near needing a new paint job? The reason I am asking is because I am not quite sure what the criteria was when that color was approved but it isn’t the criteria and the standards that we apply currently and haven’t for quite some time. So the reason I am bringing it up is for one I would not approve this trim color for the accessory structure and I don’t want this to be painted on the accessory structure and then that being used as an impetus to then repaint the house the same kind of color. Then we are just continuing the nonconformance to the enviromnent. Does that make sense? Ms. Bockholt: Yes. I hopefully am not going to make it worse by saying this but there are lots of other items on the site that are painted that color. It is not just the main house. There are the trellises and the detached garage. It is definitely the color pallet that has been chosen for the groupings of buildings and that is why we chose it for the guesthouse. Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioners, any other questions? Comanissioner Oarber, a question for the architect? Vice-Chair Oarber: No, actually Staff. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, question for the architect? Commissioner Tuma: I wanted to look at a couple of different pages of the plans in conjunction with each other. On A2.1 there is shown on the left hand side a great room, the bar si~;, and some other things but I can’t tell what is there. What is plarmed for that space? Ms. Bockhoh: For the bar? Commissioner Tuma: Where it says bar with sink. Ms. Bockholt: It is a table and then a sink. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. On the next page on A3.1 on the exterior elevation one at the top there is a notation that there is a kitchen terrace there. Ms. Bockholt: Yes. Commissioner Yuma: Is ~here a kitchen plarmed for this unit? Ms. Bockholt: No there is not. We originally had a kitchen until we realized that our site was nonconfom~ing. So we took it out. So there is no kitchen plam~ed. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. Page 9 1 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 1"7 19 2O 21 22 23 9~ 25 26 2~ 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 3~ 38 39 40 41 42 49 44 45 Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, a question for the architect? Commissioner Keller: Yes. First I would like to ask a question of Staff and then follow up with the architect because understanding the question of Staff will allow me to properly ask the question of the architect. The question of Staff is for an accessory structure ",’,;hat are the limits on the number of plumbing fixtures allowed? Mr. Menne~a: There are no limitations in the Open Space District. In some other districts in the city depending on the location if it is in a setback area for instance there are restrictions on the number of fixtures. In this district there are no restrictions on the nmnbers. Commissioner Keller: I remember some districts have a limitation of two plumbing fixtures but I am not sure where that is. Mr. Menne~a: Correct, in the R-1 District if you are in a setback area and if the structure is under or over a certain size there are different criteria but you are right there is a two plumbing fixture limitation in some cases in the R-1. Commissioner Keller: But that does not apply for this? ~’I1". Menne~a: That is correct. Commissioner Keller: Okay, then I don’t have a question for the applicant. Chair Holman: Okay. I think we have asked you all the questions we are going to. Questions for Staff, Vice-Chair Oarber. Vice-Chair Garber: Were there any comments or conditions of approval that the City Arborist has made for this project that we are aware of?. Mr. Menne~a: Let me double check here. I am sure there were conditions included in the Record of Land Use. Yes, if you have it there you can see onpage 3 of the Record of LandUse star~ing at Condition 6 ttnough Condition 10 are from the Plam~ing Arborist with the City. Clnair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: In the Staff Report it says that this doesn’t go forward to the Architectural Review Board. The last project we did in the open space did go before the Architectural Review Board. Can you just explain why that one went for architectural review and this one doesn’t? Ms. Amv French. Current Plarmin~ Manager: Yes, the Alexis Drive property that you are referring to I believe is ttwee parcels, tl=ee homes technically in the Open Space Dist~ffct would go to ARB. Now that one didn’t have tl~ee homes however, it gone under previous rules where only two homes triggered ARB to the ARB and Plarming and Council. So in our wisdorn we Page 10 ! 3 4 5 9 10 1! 12 13 14 16 19 2O 21 23 ~4 25 26 27 2~ 29 3O 31 32 34 35 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 thought that it would make sense to send it back to the ARB because it was a change to an approved Site and Design and that is actually in the code. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one other question. This is building on Commissioner Keller’s question. Palo Alto doesn’t have a moratoriuln in tel-ms of during the winter months? Mr. Menne~a: No, l-IO there is nothing codified in terms )f limiting development during the winter months that I am aware of. Ms. French: Well, for grading there have to be between ....right? Mr. Mermen_a: A condition of the approval or a condition in the Record of Land Use is that a grading permit be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department. I know they have very stringent restrictions in temps of when they will approve the permit and when it would be valid for. So that may well cover or address Commissioner Keller’s previous concern in temps of the months that this would be applicable because the grading permit would be needed before a pen-nit for construction can even be approved m this case. Commissioner Lippert: That is nay understanding. Both Ponola Valley and Los Altos Hills have similar regulations where I believe if you don’t get your grading done before I thii~l,: it is October that is usually the cutoff, then it is considered in the rainy season and you carFt begin until April. If you are able to do your grading prior to that then you are all set and you can do your consuuction tt=ough the winter months. Ms. French: That is my understanding from past practice and regulations. So I imagine what Paul said is it is covered under that standard condition. Ctnair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Fineber~: I have two questions. Does the Open Space regulation or code speak at all to the number of accessory structures on a property? I am seeing the main house and also the garage and the gym. So this is a second accessory, structure. Do we get any, guidance on that? Mr. Menne~a: That is correct, there is a second detached structure onsite the garage in this case. There is no restriction on the number of structures or even square footage in the Open Space. There are restrictions on the key real metric is the permeable surface or the impervious area is how it is termed. All of these structures as you start adding more and more structures it would add to this impervious area so you would run up against a ceiling or you have no more impervious area available for structures. That is really the only limiting factor. Commissioner Fineber~,: Okay. My second question is at the risk of sounding a bit suspicious I am looldng at the plans where there is a sink and counter area with a generous amount of open space around it and the desi~ation of a formerly noted kitchen terrace. Without seeing engineering plans is there anything that would lead you to believe that there is a kitchen plamed Page 11 6 7 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for the future or are there any restrictions that can be set as conditions of approval that there not be a t,:itchen added in the future? Mr. Menne~a: Basically adding a kitchen to the structure would require electrical and gas permits, other permits like that that would have to go t!nough the Plarming and Building Divisions. That would COlne to a Planner for review and the Plam~er would look at the Open Space requirements and realize that a kitchen in this case would not be permitted in this structure, as the Open Space Zoning is currently constituted. So the zoning itself restricts a kitchen being placed in this structure in the furore. Commissioner Fineber~: So is there 220 being run in the vicinity any,-,vhere near the bar and the sink? Mr. Menneaa: We don’t have those kinds of details at this level. Those would be coming in on a building permit. We can’t say for a fact that there isn’t at this point although there would be no need for obviously without a ldtchen. Commissioner Fineber~: So there is no way of knowing that the existing plans that we would be approving would allow for someone to come in and plug in a frig, plug in an oven, and you effectively have a kitchen. Mr. Menne~a: Theoretically if you enlist someone to do work without permits that is possible but because they will have to come in for permits to get the electrical done and to add the components that would make a Mtchen usable that would be caught by, the Building and Planning Divisions during the permit review. Commissioner Fineber~: I am sorry I don’t mean to belabor this but you can’t tell me that there is no 220 outlet in that kitchen now so .... Mr. Menne~a: No, you have the plans set there. Commissioner Fineber~: So why would they, need a permit if there is and the architect might know that there isn’t but if there is a 220 you wouldn’t need to come back for permit. Mr. Menne~a: Assuming approval of some project it will be required to come back for building permit for ever,.’thing, for all of the electrical, structural, and everything like that with full plans that will include all of the electrical details, which would show the 220 running to the kitchen area that you are referring to. So at that point the Plmmer reviewing the plans would see that. I will be reviewing the plans and would realize that there is no need for 220 to be ln.m to the kitchen so that is when it would be caught. It will be shown at some point if they are trydng to get that in there but at this stage they, are not showing any of those details because it is not a requirement yet. Ms. French: Also I would just like to add that the tlneshold for what is considered a kitchen is when there are cooking facilities. So you can have a wet bar with a full refrigerator at any point. It is when you start to put gas for the oven and that sort of thing. Page 12 2 6 7 9 ! 0 I1 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 "~9 30 31 32 34 36 ,o1 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Fineber_~: Electric oven. Ms. French: I live in the foothills we do gas. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, questions? Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Given that there was a hill slide here before and they have retained it and they have some more retaining work here that is going to be done. Is there any concern that this is just simply a bad portion of the site to build on because of its vulnerability? Mr. Menne~a: I am not an expert on the subject matter. I was over to the site a number of times and the retaining wal! is substantial. Also, a topic that came up in discussion when I was out there with another member of Staff and they indicated that this slide was during the Et Nino in 1998 when you had an inordinate amount of rain in this area. The geotechnical report that was prepared at the time and the work that was done with the ~’ading and the improvements with the retaining wall was desi~aed and reviewed by an expert to stop any of this sliding from happening in the future. So we would assume... Mr. Williams: The Building Depamnent requires soils repo~-ts for the building and that should include, if it is in an area like this, some geoteclmical support as to being sure that it is not an area that is prone to slide or that they have remediated it in some way or that the retaining wall has acted effectively to do that. If necessary we could have them do that before submitting to Building but I believe that is a standard requirement of Building any, ray. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I just wanted to follow up to that because as I understand it in the back portion of the pad where they intend to build there is a cut that needs to happen. So they are going to cut into that hillside to make it level with the part that is level now in order to put the home in there, in the exact spot where the slide was before. Again, presumably this will all be caught at some point. I just wanted to raise the concern as I was standing there and looking at the spot and where the cut was going to go back, you are cutting right back into where the slide was. So it is substantial. Mr. Menneza: Just a clarification. The understanding and confirming with the applicant is that the existing retaining wall that you are referring to at the back of the site, at the upslope portion of the site that is going to remain. That is going to be the wall and they are going to actually be continuing that ldnd of wrapping around the site and then doing some fill at the front on the down slope side. The upslope side there shouldn’t be any additional cut required into the slope. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. That is not what the applicant told me this afternoon. Maybe he was wrong. It looked like a really bad place for a cut. Mr. Menne~a: The plans as constituted don’t call for an additional cut to the rear. Page 13 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 ?1 22 23 25 26 29 32 34 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Hohnan: If you would come to the microphone please. Ms. Bockholt: I think what he might have been referring to is there is an existing retaining wall. It wraps around so we have to remove just the end little section of that retaining wall and then we are going to extend the retaining wall out. So if you were standing inside that space he might have pointed behind a retaining wall. Is that what you are asking? Commissioner Tuma: I don’t want to belabor the point because I thirflc it will get caught but we were standing and I was just observing looking and we were standing on a flat point where it comes down and there is a flat portion of the garden. He said this will be tlae floor so they are going to take all that di:-t out behind me. That is what he said to me. .Ms. Bockholt: Oh, we are going to cut within the flat area. I think that is at 112 and the finished floor is at 109 so we are going to cut down a bit to bring the house even lower into the site. There is a terrace behind the house that will bring it back up to the 112. So possibly you are stepping down on there is a series of small retaining walls on the site so possibly, you were standing on one of the lower tenaces and that was approximately the height of the floor. Comn:issioner Tun:a: Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, do I hear you disclosing that you had a conversation with the owner? Commissioner Tuma: Yes, that is a good point. I was out there this afternoon, visited the site. I was there simply to observe and he did n:ake some comments to me along the lines of what I just said. The other comment he made to me was explaining what a couple of the buildings were off in the distance as you were looking back to the site. They were all described as single-family residences. Chair Hotman: Thank you. \\q:ile I am at it are there any other disclosures that anybody needs to real,,e? Okay,. Con:missioner Keller, questions. Comn:issioner Keller: Thank you. I believe redundancy is our friend. So I am wondering whether Staff would have any objection an explicit condition of approval that there be no cooking facilities in this particular accessory building? Mr. *’Ienne~_a: That would be something that we would be open to, definitely,. Commissioner Keller: Okay,. Is there any, issue in te:-ms of drainage to the site? This is a downhill portion with a fairly, steep slope, is there any, concern about water running off down that steep slope and entering this region? Mr. Merme_~a: Yes there is and that would be addressed in the Public Works condition for a grading and drainage permit. They would want to see the proposed improvements and how the drainage issues that you are mentioning would be properly addressed to meet all the regulations applicable in this case. Page !4 l 3 4 7 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 "~9 ._,0 31 32 33 34 36 ~-7 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Okay. \Vhich condition of approval would indicate that an updated geotechnical survey would be needed? , <h. Williams: \Ve can look but I don’t think it is in the conditions of approval. I thi~Jc it is a standard Building Department requirement but I we don’t have any problem with adding that to be explicit again in the interest of redundancy. Commissioner Keller: so you wouldn’t have a problem with adding that as a condition just to be clear? Mr. \Villiams: Right. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Williams: Prior to Building Permit review. Mr. Menneaa: There was one question that came up earlier that I found the answer to that was a minor detail, the 895 square feet versus the 886. The o~iginal plan submitted did indicate the structure to be 895 but the ones before you tonight are 886. So that is what we would be moving forward with Chair Holman: Thanl< you. I have one question. The pads that run to the future guesthouse are those already lit or wi!l they be proposed to be lit because we have no lighting indication for those? Mr. Menne~a: They are not cunently lit. At this time my uriderstanding is there is no proposal to do any, substantial lighting but the applicant may be able to speak to that. Chair Holman: \\"ould you answer that question, please? Ms. Bockhott: They would like to do some low-level lighting. Nothing up higher than just to light the path itself, along the path to get access to it at night, but nothing that would shine up. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, if there are no other questions for the architect I will close the public hearing. Okay. Comments Commissioners? Vice-Chair Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: Relative to the concerns of the soils I don’t have any problems including in the motion that would be creating of including the requirement for the geotechnical report however it is redundant because it will be required. That building foundation simply can’t be desiN~ed without it. Relative to the l,:itchen I am happy, to include it although the code is very effective in describing what that is so I find it redundant but that wouldn’t keep me from including it in the motion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Page 15 ! 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 !3 14 15 16 18 !9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 3~ 36 40 Commissioner Lippert: I am in agreement with Commissioner Oarber’s comments as well. In reviewing this I am pretty much in support of what I see here. I think it is a very discreet, very small project. In fact; if you look at the site it is sited I think appropriately where all the development is kept to a corner of the site. It is not on the ridge. It is not happening above the ridgeline. It is kept below the ridgeline and in fact the cut that is cun-ently there and the fill area help stabilize that area quite a bit. What it is doing is basically building a platform on which the house can be placed. I guess when the Open Space Ordinance was written in terms of the developmen~ I don’t believe it was meant that houses in the Open Space be "camouflaged" we want them to fit in with the environment and it is not that we shouldn’t see houses there, we shouldn’t see an overabundance of development there. So by having a small groupings of buildings that fit into the landscape you actually reduce the amount of mass that would be built on any one site and break it up into very distinct pieces that would be very subtle and you wouldn’t wind up with a bit monster home out there. So this is basically functioning as a guesthouse of some kind or an accessory building that would be used as a studio or something like that. With regard to color, again, I don’t thi~lc it was meant that the buildings be camouflaged and hidden in the site by color but that we not have jarring colors like orange and purple. So I don’t have a problem with the colors that are being selected, and I don’t have a problem with the color that the original house was painted either. I thi~n_k that buildings can have their own identity and that is defined architecturally as well as by color. I guess finatly just in closing with regard to I guess houses being built in the Open Space, I have only done one house in what we would consider Open Space, and the foundations for them are fairly rigorous. Generally they are what is called pure and great beam in which the house is basically built as though the?.’ were toothpicks in a cake and the house is built on a platform that is supported by these toothpicks. The cake has some stability to it, as you know cake ctnambles very easily. By following the geotechnical guidelines, which the architect and structural engineer have to follow, a building can be successt~!ly built without impacting the natural habitat. Clnair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. I am in a~-eement with the suggestions that have been made so tkar in terms of the motion being made. I just want to add one other condition that we talked about very early in our discussion this evening and that was to minimize the landscape damage and restore it after whatever is being slid in gets slid in. Additionally, when I was reading this report I was wondering to myself what is wrong? What is the problem here? I couldn’t really find any problems. I thil~c you answered all the questions right up front and it appears that the applicant has been very sensitive to and worked very carefully with what the Open Space District rules are. So that is very much appreciated in the recommendation process. Page 16 1 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 tl t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 23 24 25 26 "~ 7 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: At this point about the only* concern I have is minimizing damage to the landscaping and restoration of what is destroyed. I just don’t see how they do this job without destroying a fair amount of that hillside, at least the vegetation and things like that. I was having a conversation earlier with other folks about what it meant to restore damaged vegetation in the Open Space and I think it is a bit vague and a bit open to interpretation. So I think some real thought needs to be given because they are going to do some damage to that hillside as far as the vegetation goes in doing this project. There is just no other way around it. So in the conditions I would like to see something that addresses that. Maybe it is a specific new planting plan or something when we 1,mow more about how they are going to do this. Unless they have magic cranes flom the sky it is going to pretty tricky in there. Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, I don’t know that you need to add it to the condition but I wanted to let you know that Dave Dockter has done this on more than one Open Space site where there has had to be a restoration plan deve!oped. So I thiIfl< we would certainly turn it over to Dave to work on that and try to develop a similar approach here. Chair Holman: Just to comment on that, one of the conditions of approval that I was going to suggest adding and it was.part_of the longer list than what we currently have as part of our standing list of conditions of approval was that the City Arborist is to approve construction staging plans. \Ve have used that before and perhaps that would soh,’e this. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Unless anybody has any further comments I would like to make a motion. Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Fineberg, do you have a question? Commissioner Fineber~: Thm~c you. A question about if you do have conditions of approval for construction staging how would one consider the impacts and the access to the adjoining properties while that private driveway is being used for constn.mtion? Mr. Mem~e~a: Those issues definitely would have to be addressed. In temps of the logistics of how that would happen that would be better covered probably by the actual logistic plan itself in terms of the contractor would know better than I would at this stage in temps of what kind of space they would need to take up with materials and equipment and things like that. So at this point it is difficult to know what kind of amount of interference that is going to have on the neighboring properties. The logistic plan would cover that. Chair Ho]man: Commissioner Tuma, you have another question? Commissioner Tuma: Yes in the interest of trying to simplify what sounds like a motion that is about to happen I do have a question in regards to the kitchen issue. Is it possible to say what would be the result of an enforcement action after the fact? Ia~ other words, if a kitchen was put in and that was discovered what is the consequence of that? Page 17 l 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 1] 12 ]3 14 t5 16 17 18 19 2O 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. \Villiams it \vould probably be removal of the stove or whatever and there may be some fine associated with it depending on sort of the nature of it and how long it existed and that kind of thing. Commissioner Tuma: Adding the language to the motion or a specific requirement in the conditions of approval wouldn’t in any way e~ance that enforcement capability, or would it? *¢r. \Villiams The City, Attorney says she thinks it would help. _h4s. Metissa Tronquet. Assistant City Attorney: I think it would be an additional violation because it would be a violation of the conditions of approval. Chair Holman: IfI could ask a question too along those lines. Having it in the conditions of approval does that not simpli~, it for reference by an owner? Ms. Tronquet: Certainly. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Keller. MOTION Commissioner Keller: I move the Staffrecommendation with the following additional conditions of approval. One is that the subject accessory structure never have any cooking facilities. Second that prior to the building permit being issued there be a geotecl-mical study be done and that study specifically, with respect to the adjacent slope between the subject accessory structure and the entrance driveway. Third that that a construction plan including timing and also indicating how the materials will be going fiom the entrance driveway to the site will be done, in particular tlnis will be done in such a way as to minimize landscape damage to the hillside and restore planting of plan with an approval by the Planning frborist of a construction staging plan and assuming no objection by, neighbors of blockage of the driveway in a way that prevents neighbors from effective use of that access to their properties. Chair Holman: City Attorney. Ms. Tronquet: My recommendation would be to not condition it on approval of neighbors. I think that you have a condition related to the staging plans and logistics. Say provide attention to the timing, accessibility, something like that. Commissioner Keller: Okay, let me revise that to provide attention to the access tt:nough that driveway of the properties for which that driveway is access and that neighbors be notified of the plan so that they can be provide appropriate input to Staff. *,’is. Tron~uet: We don’t typically provide notice of a plan like that to the neighbors. There is nothing that would prohibit us fiom doing it but... Page 18 1 3 6 7 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 5’2r. \Villiams I don’t thilJ< we want to get into a sort of public process with that plan. If we say that the plans needs to address preserving access to them that is generally sufficient. I am not aware that we have had any, cases where that has become a problem. Commissioner Keller: Okay, that’s fine. I will go with the suggestions of Curtis and the attorney with respect to that. The fourth thing is that tree protective fencing be applied to the tree on plan A1.3 that is to the left of where it says ’side yard stepping stones" and is the one that is nearest the main driveway. Number five is that the path lighting be specified and approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit issuance. SECOND Commissioner Tuma: Second. Chair Holman Curtis. Mr. Williams: I just wanted to suggest one possible change here. You said cooking facilities never on the site or something like that. i thirfl,: it should say no cooking facilities unless subsequent approval is N-anted by the City because there is always potential that regulations change and you don’t want to have the condition in there sort of forever. As long as it is something that comes ttuough~a process and is approved then I am not comfortable precluding that. 5"Is. Tronquet: If you did add that to the kitchen condition you could say that if you did not have approval you would still have a vioiation and a code enforcement case if we found a kitchen that wasn’t approved. Commissioner Keller: I am happy to revise that to no cooking facilities unless specifically approved and allowed by zoning regulations. N’Ir. Williams: You might even say specifically approved in conformance with the OS district regulations. Commissioner Keller: I am fine withthat amendment. Commissioner Tuma: As am I. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, would you care to speak to ?:our second? Commissioner Tuma: No. Chair Holman: Commissioners, comments or addition conditions of approval? Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to say with regard to the shared driveway in a deed of trust for the properties in that area there would probably be an easement with what they call and Page 19 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1! 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 ingress/egress easement for driveway purposes. Ia~ there it describes specifically what the subservient and dominant tenant of that easement are, subservient is the one who owns it on their property and the dominant is the one that has the right to use it. In there it describes that easement, if it is in fact a driveway easement, can’t be blocked and has to be there for the use of the other property owners. So I thi~c that pretty much takes care of your concern with regard to it being blocked during the construction period. They would have to make some sort of provisions for people to be able to still use that driveway. So I just wanted to clarify that for you. Chair Holman: Other Commissioners have comments? I have one that I hope will be accepted. I a~-ee with pretty much everything that has been said this evening by other Con:unissioners with one exception. I find if you look at sheet A0.2 and if you look at the photo in the upper right hand of that sheet I find that structure jarring in the Open Space District. So what I am going to ask is that the Swiss coffee on our sample board here not be approved, that the revised color be returned to Staff.. that is a number of shades darker to be more compatible with the enviromnent. \Vhile this is a small structure it has been stated by the architect that there is a continuance here. This color was chosen because it is consistent essentially with the other buildings on the site. So if we continue that pattern when the house get repainted we can’t condition this, I am sure the City Attorney would say there is not a nexus, we can’t condition that the house will be a different color and something darker. I don’t want to continue the pattern of this light color in the Open Space District. I for one find this building very jarring from Los Trancos Road. So I am hoping that the maker and seconder:of the motion will accept a change to that trim color. Convnissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Do we have any comments from Staff on that? Mr. Williams: I think that is fine. Commissioner Keller: Then I will accept that amendment. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: It is acceptable to me as well. Chair Holman: Thank you very much..*M~y other comments? The public hearing is closed I’m afraid. You could probably, address a question to Staff later that they, could answer. Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Fineber~: A clarifying question for Chair Hohnan. If there was a condition that the color be something consistent with the current Open Space ordinances again, sorry it is that suspicious side of me, is there anything that then prevents the current owner or a subsequent owners from repainting it the Swiss white again? Chair Hohnan: That is a good point I look to Staff. Typically, what we have is that the condition would be that the colors used be consistent with the sample boards provided. We are changing that sample board so I guess I would look to Staffto see how best to condition that. Page 20 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "~9 30 31 32 O~ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: I think that your language was fine as far as changing the trim to be a darker tone that is more compatible with the Open Space area. The question about subsequently what happens to that again it becomes a potential code violation if they are not complying with what they have specified in these plans. Unless somebody sees it, which they may not on this, you might not know. They need to paint it that color to get final inspection. What happens tl:nee years or five years fiom now unless somebody sees it and tells us or something? Clnair Holman: Might I suggest this as an amendment to my amendment? That the applicant submit a revised color board and that consistency with that would be the condition of approval so at least that would be the color board of record. Would that be helpful? It would be the same thing, somebodv would have to notice it and complain but if that would be more agreeable? Commissioner Keller: Fine \xith me. Commissioner Tuma: I may be out of order on this but could I ask the indulgence of the other members of this body; to hear what the architect had to say regarding the color issue? This may streamline things here. Chair Holman: Okay, we could reopen the public hearing I assume so okay. Ms. Bockholt: I guess I area bit unclear of why this is being an issue considering the guesthouse is virtually not visible from any public point. Chair Holman: Because it goes to my line of questions earlier. This color was chosen because it is as close as you could determine to the other structures iucluding the main house. So I don’t want this to be a continuation of that color scheme and then be used as rationale for continuing that again when there is repainting of the other structures on the site. Ms. Boct,:holt: I guess I feel like we are done. They have reached their limit of impervious mea so they, won’t be building additional new structures. I find it doubtful that they would repaint the rest of their entire house and site based on an 895 square foot guesthouse that the?, can’t even see. So it would be a different color but it would not influence what they paint their housing in the future. Also, the main house has a lot of railing because there is a wraparound porch around the entire house. The proposed structure does have a trellis that runs in fl’ont of the main area of the house, of the great room but would not be seen. So really from the vantage points that you do see the house briefly you see a small amount of fascia board and small amount of window trim and door trim but it wouldn’t be as jarring in your words from the main road. I guess I would like to repeat that it is not going to influence what they paint the house. Something so smal! would not influence such a large change. Chair Holman: It may not and yet it is a message that I would like this Commission to send. I think it is an appropriate one. Your rationale, .,,’our logic is good logic. Again, it is the rationale and the precedent that I would like to change and reverse here. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Tha~( you for ?,our comments. I will go ahead and support the addition of the amendment. Thank you. Page 21 1 MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0, Commissioners Garber and Lippert voted no): Page 22