HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 172-05The parcel has frontage on Skyline Boulevard, which has a special setback of 200 feet. A
variance was approved on January 5, 2005 to allow the garage and accessory buildings to
encroach into this special setback as noted on the Zoning Compliance Table (see
Attachment D). The variance was approved based upon the required findings (per PAMC
18.76), as rioted in the variance approval letter (Attachment E).
The proposed single-family home is a permitted use within the OS District and is
compatible 'with the existing Williamson Act contract (see Attachment F) as noted
Attachment G. The proposed structures, of natural materials in earth-tone colors, would
not be visible from Skyline Boulevard nor from the surrounding properties, due to the
substantial screening provided by the existing trees, vegetation and terrain.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 26,2005, this project was heard by the Commission, who recommended that
the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design
Review application (7-0-0-0). The Commissioners discussed the proposed materials and
compliance with zoning, and expressed their appreciation for the applicant's sensitivity to
the environment. Other than the applicant, there were no members of the public who
spoke. The Commission staff report and minutes are attached to this report (Attachment I
and J).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been
determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures and standard conditions
of approval, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made and was available for public review
beginning November 19,2004 through December 8, 2004, and is attached to this staff
report (Attachment K).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised to reflect the Variance that was
granted for setback encroachments and the decrease in impervious area of the project.
These changes were minor in scope and recirculation of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration is deemed unnecessary.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies Compliance
D. Zoning Compliance Table
E. Variance Approval Letter
F. Williamson Act Contract (Council Resolution 5516)
G. Background
CMR:172:05 Page 2 of3
Attachment A
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be
covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
the construction site shall be swept and watered daily.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
8. Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction
activities. Typical noise sources would include mechanical
equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of
constructing the building. Such noise will be relatively short
in duration and occur during the construction phase of the
project. Once completed, long-term 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 activities
prohibited on Sunday and Holidays) would reduce construction-
related noise impacts to less than significant levels.
9. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division. A licensed landscape
architect and qualified irrigation consultant shall prepare
these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include:
a. All existing trees identified to be retained.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size, and locations. Drought tolerant and native plant
material compatible with the open space district shall be
specified. Plant list and Procedures for Landscaping under
Native Oaks, Tree Technical Manual, Appendix L, shall be
consulted.
c. Irrigation schedule and plan.
d. Fence locations.
e. Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
g. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for
trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep,
backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of
wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the
trunk by I-inch.
4
be removed are 37.5 inches or greater in circumference, nor designated as a protected,
heritage, or street tree.
7. . Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to
minimize the need for grading. The cuts proposed for submersion of the lower level are
encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the natural topography. The
proposed cuts for the driveway are minimized due to the route chosen being the shortest
one possible. There is no fill proposed for this project.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of
impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces have been minimized,
limited to the driveway and building footprint, and would be below the 3.5% allowed.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. All proposed
building materials are natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.
The roof color is a dark brown and the wall color is a light brown with dark brown trim.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique.
The site will be kept ina natural state with native species. No formal landscaping is
proposed. The conditions of approval would ensure the use of fire retardant plants in any
future landscaping.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site. The plans submitted with the application indicate these policies
would be observed. The proposed exterior lighting for the front entry/driveway and rear
deck will be directed downward. The conditions of approval would require any exterior
lighting to be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open
space lands.
12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The
proposed access drive would be asphalt with no curbs, gutters or lighting.
13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. The proposed project has
a 0.9% impervious coverage, where 3.5% is allowed, and meets the 0-8 (Open Space)
District zoning regulations.
City of Palo Alto
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
5061 Skyline Blvd.
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
Attachment C
Policy L-1 ofthe 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City of Palo Alto to
retain undeveloped land west ofthe Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of
the area. The proposed project site is designed in accordance with this very low-intensity
requirement. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open
Space/Controlled Development and one residence is permitted on the project site.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-1, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this project.
POLICYN-1:
Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space
areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact
recreation needs.
POLICYN-3:
Protect sensitive plant species resources from the impacts of development.
POLICYN-4:
Preserve the foothill area as predominantly open space.
POLICYN-6:
Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district
regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open
space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides.
POLICYN-7:
All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra
Boulevard) should be consistent with the Open Space development criteria, see Attachment B for
details.
City of Palo Alto
Standard
Lot size
Maximum site impervious
area (including building
coverage)
Maximum height*
Setbacks
Parking
Accessory Buildings
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
5061 Skyline Blvd.
OS Open Space Project Zoning Regulations
10 acres minimum 11.04 acres
3.5 % 0.9%
(16,832 sq. ft.) (4,376 sq. ft.)
25 feet 25 feet
Front -200 foot Garage partially special setback located within front Side -30 feet setback Rear -30 feet
4 spaces (1 covered, 3 3 covered,
uncovered) 1 uncovered
Not permitted in street Located within
facing yard front yard
Attachment D
Conformance
Yes
Yes
Yes
No**
No**
No**
* The definition of height is the vertical distance above grade (elevation of finished or existing
grade, whichever is lower) to the average height ofthe highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
The height of a stepped or terraces building is the maximum height of any segment of the
building.
** A Variance was granted for setback encroachments for the required parking and the accessory
buildings. .
City of Palo Alto
5061 Skyline Blvd ..
Variance
P",ge 2 of4
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
(1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including
(but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title
substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.
The project site is located on Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) and is a
designated scenic cOlTidor with a 200-foot special setback (Ord. # 2687). This
special setback serves the purpose of preserving the existing scenic qualities of
this transit con-idor. Although .the vacant project site is large (11 acres), it has
limited developable land due to its steep ten-ain and heavily forested character.
These extreme characteristics are not typjcally found within other parcels in this
zone district. The area of the site that best suited for development is located within
an approximate 250-foot zone ofthe front propeliy line. The main house has been
designed and sited to comply with the 200 front yard special setback, but the
garage, parking and accessory buildings encroach into this area. The topography
of the site forces any significant development to the front area of the parceL The
locations of the garage and ac~essory structures are all screened from view from
Skyline Boulevard. The site has a rise in grade from the road of approximately 14
feet that then slopes back down again. This change in grade from the street is more
than enough to screen a view from a point six feet above grade at the midpoint of
the road.
(2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the SCllne zoning district
as the subject property.
The project site is subject to the same regulations that apply to other OS parcels in
the vicinity. The granting of the Variance does not affect substantial compliance
with the OS development regulations and allows the project site to develop in a
manner consistent with the sun-ounding OS parcels.
(3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposed project is .consistent with the goals of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-
12 and L-69. The project is designed to be compatible with the character of the
5061 Skyline Blvd.
Variance
Page 3 of 4
neighborhood and preserves the scenic value of Skyline Blvd. The siting of the
house, garage, and accessory structures are all screened from view by the existing
naturaUopography and vegetation of the site. The proposed use does not conflict
with the promotion and protection ofpubl1c health, safety, peace, morals, comfort,
convenience, and general welfare.
(4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
The project will not negatively impact the scenic qualities of Skyline Boulevard
and maintains the rural character of the area. The project shall be constructed to
meet all the City's development regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and
therefore will not be detrimental to publi~ health, safety, and welfare.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In granting variances, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if
appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title (Zoning). The following
conditions of approval apply in this case:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the
setbacks, daylight plane, and footprint shown on the plans submitted .
September 13,2004 and revisions received on December 13, 2004 that are
on file with the City except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the
blueprints submitted for building pelmit. The building permit will not be
approved without this letter printed on the plan set.
3. The Variance approval is contingent upon the approval of the associated
Site and Design Review application 02-D-12.
In accordance with the provisions ofPAMC Chapter 18.77.060 (c), any person
may request a hearing ofthis item before the Planning and Transportation
Commission. Such request must be made in writing to the Planning Division
within 14 calendar days of the publication or mailing of this decision. Should you
have any questions regarding the Director's determination, please do not hesitate
to contact the Project Planner, Clare Campbell, at (650) 617-.319l.
5061 Skyline Blvd.
Variance
Page 4 of 4
Sincerely,
., ~// . /" /
'.'1!/1/ ~£ / / 1,.£ ~/ I . . v __ ..... '-oc;. ........ l---'". / ----..,-
Amy French .
Manager of Cunent Planning
Copies to: Neighbors within 600 feet of the subject property
BACKGROUND
5061 Skyline Blvd.
Existing Site Conditions
Attachment G
The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled
Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. In 1972, the City of Palo
Alto created the OS zoning district to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and
valuable resource and to permit the reasonable use of open space (P AMC Section 18.71.010).
The Open Space District zone was then assigned to the subject property.
Access to the vacant II-acre site is from a shared driveway with 5065 Skyline Blvd. that
connects to Skyline Blvd.
The topography is varied and ranges in elevation from 1,840 to 2,180 feet above sea level. The
terrain consists of open meadow hillside areas and-wooded sloped terrain consisting of Canyon
Live Oak, California Bay Laurel, Douglas Fir, and Pacific Madrone.
Adjoining properties are zoned and designated as Open Space and developed with single-family
residences.
Williamson Act
The project is subject to the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act). The California
Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open space lands by
discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act creates
an arrangement whereby private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily
restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. The vehicle for these
agreements is a rolling term 10-year contract (i.e., unless either party files a "notice of non-
renewal," the contract is automatically renewed for an additional year). In return, restricted
parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than
potential market value.
On February 13, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5516, establishing an
agricultural preserve on approximately 17.28 acres, which has since been subdivided and
includes the subject II-acre parcel. A copy of the Resolution (The Contract) is attached to this
report as Attachment 1.
The list of compatible uses determined to be compatible by the Williamson Act is contained in
the contract and includes "uses permitted by the regulations of the OS Open Space District."
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.71.050 lists the permitted uses in the OS zone district.
Single-family dwellings are a permitted use.
City of Palo Alto
A. Summary Description & Purpose of Project:
We propose a two-story 3550 sq. ft. 4-bedroom, 3-Y2-bath timber frame home
with attached garage on an 11 acre heavily forested lot. The neighborhood
does not receive any services or utilities from Palo Alto; therefore owners will
provide water by well, gas by propane tank, sewage disposal by septic system,
their own refuse disposal, police from San Mateo County Sheriff,fire
protection from Ca. Dept. of Forestry.
The driveway connects to existing driveway of adjacent lot (our current home)
via easement to minimize grading, length, & visual impact. Impervious
coverage oflot is less than 1.7% including driveway.
No part of development is visible from off the property, much less any public
accessible roads, trails, or lands. There are no protected, heritage, designated,
or street trees on this lot of over 8000 trees.
The purpose of building this home is to provide retirement home for Harv &
Pam Loucks with minimal environmental impact. The proposed home will
be handicap friendly and have a lower level bedroom (not available in current
home). Loucks' existing home is at 5065 Skyline Blvd immediately adjacent
to the proposed proj ect.
B. Open Space Development Criteria Response:
Located in the heart of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands,
in a virgin dense mixed evergreen forest, and given the environmental values
ofthe owners, this property must be developed with a stubborn commitment
and sensitivity to environmental/ecological values. This proposal exceeds all
the requirements of the Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria as
follows:
1. Criteria: The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways
and public parklands. It should be sited so that it is hidden from view as much as
possible.
Response: Development is not visible from off the owner's property, much less any
public accessible roadways, trails, or lands.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline.
Response: Structure sits well below ridgeline: is not visible from off property.
2
8. Criteria: To reduce the need for cut and fills and to reduce potential runoff, large,
flat expanses of impervious surface should be avoided.
Response: Flat impervious surface has been limited to the required driveway
immediately in front ofthe house and garage. This amounts to 2126 sq. ft. which is
0.4% ofthe lot.
9. Criteria: Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors.
Response: The colors of the roof are dark greenish-brown to mimic the fir greenery,
the trim is dark brown to mimic the fir bark, the siding is a lighter gray-brown to
resemble the grass & earth tones. The materials are chosen for fire resistance
(concrete siding, asphalt/fiberglass shingles, class A decking, etc) although there are
some timber-frame accents on the exterior.
10. Criteria: Landscaping should be native species which require little or no
irrigation. Immediately adjacent to struCtures, fire retardant plants should be used
as a fire prevention technique.
Response: The minimal landscaping will consist of native shrubs & grasses. There
will be a few fire resistant plants in the front of the house, and some potted plants on
the decks as part of our fire prevention defense. The deer & rabbits would remove
any non-native plants.
11. Criteria: Exterior lighting should be low intensity and shielded from the view so
it is not directly visible from off-site.
Response: The lighting is minimal and not visible from any public or private roads or .
parks. The driveway is not lighted for instance, and only low intensity down lights
(hidden behind beams) are used in the front entrance/driveway area and rear deck
area. No lighting will be visible from any public accessible area.
12. Criteria: Access roads should be of rural rather than urban character (standard
curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills
environment).
Response: The proposed driveway is short -146' -and has no curbs, gutters,
lighting, or sidewalks.
13. Criteria: For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in
general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations.
Response: Ground coverage will remain natural. Impervious coverage is 1.7%.
Development is not in unincorporated area.
4
Combustible materials will be cleared from the structures for approximately 30 ft
except for some mature trees and fire resistant native shrubs. Lower branches on
trees within the 30 perimeter will be trimmed up at least 10ft.
The roofwill use non-clogging rain gutters to prevent the buildup of combustible
materials.
The house will be built from fire-resistant materials: the roof is Class A fiberglass
reinforced asphalt shingles with double-sided sanding, the siding and most trim is
Class A Hardiplank concrete composition shingles. The decking will be Class A
rated fire-resistant Ipe hardwood with all combustible materials cleared from
under the deck.
F. Siting & Grading
The house is located on the only feasible building site on the property. It cannot
be located closer to Skyline Blvd due to the 100' scenic corridor setback and
because it would tend to become visible from Skyline Blvd., nor can it be located
further down the steep ridge due to excessive driveway grade, septic system leach
field requirements, and tree retention. The proposed location eliminates the visual
impact ofthe development while minimizing the required grading and number of
trees to be removed. The amount of grading cut is estimated at 1195 cubic yards.
We do not propose fill. A preliminary grading plan is attached as drawing A9.
G. Construction Best Practices & Storm Drainage:
This property does not contain any Palo Alto storm drains, nor does any part of
the runoff ever enter a Palo Alto storm drain. Drainage on the East side of
Skyline Ridge enters Stevens Creek then to Stevens Creek Reservoir. Drainage to
the West side of Skyline Ridge drains into Peter's Creek, which joins Pescadero
Creek, which runs into the Pacific. . .
California storm water best management practices will be observed to minimize
runoff. No SWPP is required, as the development will disturb less than 'l4 acre
and only cuts exist: no fill. A California registered civil engineer will prepare an
engineered grading/drainage plan. There will be no storm drainage fee. The
water table level is estimated at 75 ft. below the house foundation.
Construction logistics: No materials delivery will be routed through Palo Alto.
Materials will be delivered to the site via State hwy 9 and Skyline Blvd through
Saratoga, or State hwy 84 and Skyline Blvd through Woodside. Page Mill Rd
through Palo Alto is not suitable for materials delivery. No materials will be
stored within view of Skyline Blvd. California best management practices will be
used for concrete truck c1eanout. No Palo Alto residents or travelers on Skyline
Blvd will even be aware that. construction is in progress at the site.
9
H. Exterior Lighting:
Exterior lighting will be located oil the house & garage primarily for security.
The lighting will be located behind the timber frame trusses in the gable ends.
The decks, walkways, and driveway will not have additional lighting. None of
the proposed lighting can be viewed directly from off the lot, even at night due to
dense forestation, hills, and open space closure at dusk. Except for the porch
sconces, the fixtures are utility metal housings with incandescent parabolic flood
reflectors. Except for social events and security checks, exterior lighting will
seldom be used. The list of anticipated lighting is as follows: .
Location Wattage
1. North gable end behind trusses 60
2. Over garage door at N. end of deck. 40
3.· East gable end behind trusses 60
4. Entry porch sconces 60
5. South Gable end behind trusses 60
6. North east side of garage under eaves 60
7. South, front side of garage under eaves 60
8. West comer of house under eaves 60
I. INTERESTING/UNUSUAL ADDITIONAL PROJECT DATA:
1. SERVICES:
FIRE: CDF SARATOGA SUMMIT, 3 MI.
POLICE: SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF
GARBAGE: SELF-DISPOSAL
2. UTILITIES:
WATER: WELL ON SITE.
GAS: PROPANE TANK.
POWER: PG&E
PHONE: SBC
SEWER: SEPTIC SYSTEM
3. SCHOOLS:
K -8: MONTEBELLO IN SARATOGA
9 -12: SARATOGA HIGH
4. ALTITUDE OF HOUSE:
5. ELEVATION CHANGE ON PROPERTY:
6. AVERAGE RAINFALL:
7. AVERAGE SNOWFALL:
8. LIFE EXPECTANCY OF HOUSE:
2211 FT.
410 FT.
451N.
31N.
300 YRS.
Qty. Total
2 120
1 40
2 120
2 120
3 180
1 60
1 60
1 60
12 760 watts.
10
9. DISTANCES & TRAVEL TIMES OF INTEREST:
SITE TO PALO ALTO CITY HALL: 16.7MI. 40 MIN.
PALO ALTO CITY HALL TO MILPITAS: 15.5 MI. 25 MIN.
PALO ALTO CITY HALL TO BURLINGAME: 16.5MI. 25 MIN
SITE TO SARATOGA VILLAGE: 10.5 MI. 15 MIN.
NEAREST FIRE STATION: CDF 3.0 MI. 5 MIN.
NEAREST CITY FIRE STA. SARATOGA 10.7 MI.15 MIN
NEAREST PALO ALTO FIRE STATION: 14.3 MI. 35 MIN
(RESPONSE TIME 45 MIN.152 CURVES, 2500 FT CLIMB)
NEAREST CROSS ROAD: PAGE MILL 2.8 MI. 4.5 MIN.
NEAREST BUSINESS: SKYLONDA 10 MI. 12 MIN.
10. MAILING ADDRESS: STAR RT. 2, BOX 332, LA HONDA, CA 94020
J. List of Professional Service Providers
Ownerlbuilders: Harv & Pam Loucks
Palo Alto Planner & Coordinator: Chris Riordan
Architect & Timberframer:
Terry Klassen: Owl Ridge Timberframing; Chase, B.C., Canada
Design Drafting:
Kurt Hubert: HubertHaus Timberframing, Golden, B.c., Canada
Engineering: Grading Plan, Structural Analysis, & Foundation Design:
Phillip Hart; Alpine Engineering; Coeur d' Alene, Idaho (Ca registered)
Engineering: Soils, Geotechnical: Charles Hartsog; Us soils, Mt. View, Ca
Arborist: John McClenahan; S.P. McClenahan Co., Portola Valley, Ca
Well Drilling: Aaron Lingaman; Earth Flow Drilling, Santa Cruz, Ca
Septic System Design: Steve Brooks, REHS, San Jose, and Ca.
11
The proposed project will not be visible from Skyline Blvd and the surrounding properties. The
existing trees, vegetation, and terrain provide screening of the project area. The use of earth tone
colors and natural building materials will also minimize the visual impact of the home. Please
refer to "Project Description" section of Attachment G and Project Plans for more details.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review Period:
P &TC Meeting:
ARB Meeting:
Required Action by Council:
RESOURCE IMPACT:
Date:
November 01, 2002
September 22, 2004
November 19 -December 8, 2004
January 26, 2005
Not required for singly developed
single-family residences.
March 22, 2005
The project does not have any economic impacts to the City's General Fund. The project site is
not serviced by any of the City'S utilities and would not have a detrimental effect on city
resources. The site will have a water well, propane gas tank, and a septic system. The applicable
Development Impact Fees shall be required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a
building pennit for the new residence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has
been detennined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures and standard conditions of
approval, 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 has been made and is available for public review beginning November 19, 2004 through
December 8, 2004, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment J).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Findings for Approval
C. Location Map
D. Applicant Submittal
E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
F. Zoning Table
G. Background
H. Variance (02-V AR-18) Approval Letter, dated January 5,2005
I. Williamson Act Contract (Resolution #5516)
J. . Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Checklist
K. Project Plans (Commissioner's Only)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
NEWBUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
Planning and Transportation Commission
January 26, 2005
Verbatim Minutes
EXCERPT
Attachment J
1. 5061 Skyline Blvd [02-D-12, 02-EIA-13J*: Request by Harvey and Pamela Loucks for
Site and Design review for the construction of a new 5,569 square foot single family
residence (including a 1,987 square foot unfinished basement) and an attached 1,482
square foot three-car garage, on an eleven-acre vacant lot in the OS Open Space zone
district. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
SR Web link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagendalpublishlplanning-transportation-meetings/4173. pdf
Ms. Clare Campbell, Associate Planner: Good evening. I will start offby clarifying some
information in the Staff Report. There was a recent revision in the plans and that revision
reduced the impervious area to 0.9% and there may have been some references to the previous
impervious percentage of 1.67% in the Report or attachments and that is now incorrect. So 0.9%
is the impervious area.
Also, on sheet A-4 of the plans there was a typo referring to the paving as asphalt instead of
porous paving and the plans will be revised to be consistent throughout and will indicate that is
all porous paving that is being proposed for the driveway.
Also, the Record of Land Use Action some of the conditions of approval there was just a miss-
numbering of some of those conditions so I just want to make sure that I make those clear.
So the Site and Design proj ect before you tonight is for a single-family residence, and accessory
structures on an II-acre lot in the Open Space District. A Variance was requested for the project
to allow the garage and accessory structure and equipment to encroach in the 200-foot special
setback. This Variance was approved on January 5, 2005. The proposed project complies with
the Comprehensive Plan policies and meets the 13 criteria that are required for the development
in the Open Space District as described in Attachment B ofthe Report.
The proposed project will not be visible from Skyline Boulevard and is well screened by the
existing trees, vegetation and terrain of the site. The use of earth tone colors and natural building
materials will also minimize the visual impact of the home. I have the material sample board
right here for us to take a look at.
The proposed project includes the removal of 47 trees in the immediate project area. These trees
are listed on the plans. None of the tree species proposed for removal are considered protected.
According to the Open Space Development Criteria all trees regardless of species that have a
Page 1
1 circumference equal to or greater than 37 and a half inches shall be maintained. The proposed
2 trees for removal are all smaller than this threshold. The Planning Landscape Specialist, Dave
3 Dockter, has reviewed the plans and supports the removal of the trees in conjunction with the
4 proposed proj ect.
5
6 Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
7 Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the finding that the project will not
8 result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application
9 for the new house in the Open Space District based upon the findings and conditions in the
10 Record of Land Use attached to the Report. This concludes Staffs report. The applicant,
11 Harvey Loucks, is present and will be ready to make a presentation for you.
12
13 Chair Cassel: If anyone wishes to speak they need to fill out a card and give that to the
14 Secretary. Give us your name and your address and that will help me know when to call which
15 person and will help them later on in keeping the record. Do we have any clarifying questions
16 for the Staff at this time? Then I presume Mr. Loucks is going to speak. You have 15 minutes.
17 Do I have a card for him? Mr. Loucks when you finish will you complete a card? Thank you.
18 You have 15 minutes to speak. You do not need to use all of it if you don't think you need to
19 and you will have three minutes to summarize at the end.
20
21 Mr. Harvey Loucks, Applicant: I will probably be speaking fairly quickly. I am Harvey Loucks
22 and I am delighted to be here tonight to speak with you folks regarding our proposed
23 development up in Palo Alto's Open Space on Skyline Boulevard. This is going to be a
24 retirement home for myself, my wife and my mother. It contains a lot of features that are much
25 more amenable to retirement than our existing home including a ground floor master bedroom
26 suite and also a much more handicap friendly layout and hardware. It also contains one more
27 bedroom for a total of four to accommodate some of our out-of-state family and their frequent
28 visits.
29
30 It is really a difficult challenging thing to build up in the Open Space area. It is very complex
31 with a lot of conflicting requirements. The environmental considerations I think are probably the
32 most important ones of all. I can't begin to touch in 15 minutes on all the facets of developing in
33 this area so I am actually going to just focus entirely on the environmental aspects iIi my
34 presentation here.
35
36 Pam and I realized early on when we bought this property 15 years ago that the successful
37 development of this site was going to hinge almost entirely on how well we managed the
38 environmental issues. We have been thinking and planning and scheming for 15 years now on
39 how to do it right and hopefully this is the sense that you will get tonight. Our project goes
40 environmentally related to the ones that I have listed on the chart there. Basically they are all
41 environmentally related. I think we have successfully achieved meeting these goals. Moving on
42 to the next slide you can see here that I am very proud that we have achieved a 0.91 %
43 impervious coverage. This was a little earlier slide when I miscalculated a little bit on my
44 computer so correct that 0.95% to 0.91 %. In any case it is below one percent. I presume this is a
45 very low impervious coverage for a Palo Alto development and proud of being able to achieve
46 that.
Page 2
1
2 We have very minimal landscaping it is all native plants. Up in our area with the gofers and the
3 deer and the rabbits and the quail and the other things it doesn't pay much to put anything other
4 than native. Also with beautiful forest surrounding you really don't need much of anything else
5 in terms of landscaping. This is typical in the area. There are no fences on the property except
6 along Skyline Boulevard there is an existing woven wire fence at that point. When we first
7 moved in about 16 years ago there were about 1,500 feet of barbwire fence on the property.
8 Over the years I have slowly been removing all of that until it is finally all gone. There are no
9 other fences proposed in the rest of the property. We do have an individual well and septic
10 system on the property because we are not served by any utilities or services from Palo Alto
11 being so far out. This is actually a good thing environmentally in that you don't have any
12 demands on the municipal utility system and in essence you have 100% recycling because every
13 gallon of water you pull out of the aquifer you put right back into it with your leech fields and
14 your septic system. So it is a nice thing. In addition I have known for many years that I am
15 going to be doing this development and I have been collecting some materials and tools over the
16 years. I have from Driftwood Salvage in East Palo Alto and other places acquired all of the
17 framing lumber I need from recycled homes that have been demolished around the Bay Area.
18
19 Moving on here to the next slide. Energy consumption is always a big consideration in terms of
20 environmental impact and we have done a number of things here that I think are going to be a
21 good way to go. We are using radiant floor heating as well as ductless air conditioning. This
22 completely eliminates the normal forced air heating systems that are in most homes along with
23 all the ducting that requires the spaces between floors that don't exist in a timber frame home,
24 which I will discuss more later on. Radiant floor heating and ductless air conditioning are about
25 30% more efficient than forced air type HV AC systems. We are also of course using the high
26 performance windows that are standards. We have a fresh air heat exchanger so we aren't
27 blowing our hot air out of the house as we bring fresh air in and because of the timber frame
28 construction and the structural insulated panel enclosure system we achieve these really
29 phenomenal 'R' values for the walls and the roof. The walls are R-24 and this represents a six-
30 inch thick structurally insulated panel enclosure. We are using an eight inch thick not only roof
31 structural insulated panels that give us an R-33. So overall this home has qualified for the
32 government Energy Star rating for energy conservation and being 30% more efficient than
33 government standards and 15% more efficient than City standards it actually beats it by a pretty
34 good amount.
35
36 One of my main goals was also to minimize the tree removal. You have to remember this is a
37 forested site. It is 95% forested over that 11 acres it is only about a half acre of pasture land all
38 along the highway and it is all within that 200 foot setback that we discovered we had last
39 month. We have I think achieved a really low level of tree removal by doing basically one tree
40 and 187 or so is being removed from the property. The pump house tanks had to be placed up at
41 the top of the hill so that we would have gravity feed to the required fire hydrant that the Fire
42 Department requires for fire fighting. We located the pump house and the propane tank. clustered
43 right together with these three water tanks that had to be put in this position. The house siting
44 itself was very carefully done to try and balance a lot of requirements. It ended up being in a
45 place that was mostly cleared by the previous owner for firewood. So it was fortunate that they
46 had done that there were fewer trees to remove. We placed a couple of retaining walls stepped
Page 3
1 just uphill from the house and this was in order to step up to the original grade very quickly so
2 that we could retain a number of oaks and Douglas firs and Dave madrones that are uphill from
3 the house area there. Because of the way the house sits down the driveway has to be in front of
4 it. Most of the grading cut is in front of the house and by having these retaining walls stepped up
5 we have saved a number of trees. We have also placed all the trenching in the pasture area and
6 also the leech field. It was some trouble to find a good place for the leech field part of the septic
7 system. The leech field is 500 feet long with a two-foot wide trench and it is eight feet deep and
8 none of it encroaches on any below the drip line to cause damage to any roots and trees. It is
9 located out in the pasture right near the highway. So that really helped avoid some root damage.
10 Then we located the driveway in the shortest possible place and actually filed an easement on our
11 own property next door, our other lot, so that we could have just one driveway that fronted on
12 Skyline Boulevard rather than two for the two properties. This way it also made the driveway
13 invisible which we are happy to see.
14
15 This really doesn't show up very well at all. I was hoping here. You see the three tanks are
16 actually clumped together here. The three water tanks are clumped together here with the pump
17 house and the propane tank with utility structures all in one place. The trenching for bringing the
18 power and phone in comes in like this. There is forest all along this area here it is a little thinner
19 around the house and coming out this way. There are actually no trees right in here and we are
20 taking the trenching in through here to the house. Gosh, I am amazed at how this came out so
21 poorly. The leech fields are out in this area. This is SkylineBoulevard and this is the pasture
22 area right out in through here. I can see that slide is not going to be that particularly helpful but
23 you can see the same thing I believe in the site plans that are in front of you.
24
25 This is probably one ofthe goals that I held onto most of all is to make sure that no aspect ofthis
26 development was visible to the general public for any public accessible area. In fact there is no
27 part ofthe project that is even visible from off the property. None of our neighbors will even be
28 able to see that it is there. That is because the home is placed down in an area as far as possible
29 away from Skyline Boulevard and it is surrounded by high trees. I believe some of the tallest
30 trees in Palo Alto are actually located on our property. I know We have at least two or three
31 Douglas firs {hat are over 200 feet high and about eight feet in diameter. None of those are near
32 . the building site except if they fall. There are hills and trees to the south of the building site.
33 The trees are fairly thin going to the south towards the highway but there is a hill that is between
34 the house and highway that totally obscure the visibility of the house. It also obscures visibility
35 of the pump house and the tanks. Ihave illustrated that down below here with a true scale
36 sectional cut from the pump house through the hill out to Skyline Boulevard. This is the middle
37 of Skyline Boulevard and if you are hiking, biking, walking, driving along your eyeballs are
38 probably six feet or below and your line of sight doesn't all you to see the tank and the pump
39 house which are located behind the crest ofthe hill. It looks like they might be visible when you
40 are standing and walking around in this area because you can see the highway and the tanks but
41 the tanks actually sit down in the remains of an old foundation from an old stable that I removed
42 when we did a property line adjustment about three years ago. So this is a fairly important point
43 I think. The actual driveway going down to the house starts below these pumps and house. So
44 we did achieve 100% lack of visibility from off the property for the developments.
45
Page 4
1 There are conflicting requirements in this area. There are a lot of them as I mentioned. The
2 thing that you have to do to make it work is somehow resolve all these. Our approach was to
3 make sure that we sited and bunched all the utility structures at the place that they had to be at
4 the top of the hill and also we pushed the garage and the house just as far away from the highway
5 as possible.
6
7 I wonder in might have one more minute to conclude?
8
9 Chair Cassel: Yes sir, one minute.
10
11 Mr. Loucks: Thank you very much. So the house and the garage were pushed back just as far as
12 possible. If they were pushed any farther downhill it gets quite steep out there then the current
13 driveway grade would not be legal, we would not be able to have the gravity feed to the septic
14 system and there would be several other difficulties with parking spaces.
15
16 In summary, I think my wife and I have done about our best over the 15 years to try to figure out
17 how to develop this property as responsibly as possible. On behalf of my wife, my self, my
18 mother and my bother in Kansas, my sister in New Mexico, my other sister in Texas and my son
19 and daughter in this area I hope that you will find this is an appropriate way to develop the last
20 undeveloped property along Skyline Boulevard. Thank you very much.
21
22 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Do we have any questions for him? Lee, I see you nodding.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Do you have any sustainable features to the house?
25
26 Mr. Loucks: I am not sure what you mean. Where the structural insulated panels here are made
27 from a sustainable fast growing aspen trees that are harvested every 15 years. I am not sure what
28 you mean exactly, Lee.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Are there any recycled materials being used? Are there any salvaged
31 materials being used on your house?
32
33 Mr. Loucks: As I mentioned all of the interior walls are framed with recycled lumber that I have
34 already purchased. The garage and the pump house will be framed with recycled lumber. Also
35 the expanded polyethylene foam that is the rigid foam that is in the structural insulated panels is
36 about 15% recycled materials.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: So that is not isocyanides in there?
39
40 Mr. Loucks: No it is not, there are no greenhouse gases being destroyed by the production of
41 these materials. It comes from the Intergreen Corporation in British Columbia. So no
42 halogenated gases are created in the formation of it. We do recycle at the Palo Alto dump if that
43 is helpful.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: I have one follow up question on that.
46
Page 6
1 Chair Cassel: Go ahead.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: On the exterior are you using any noncombustible materials?
4
5 Mr. Loucks: We are using entirely noncombustible materials on the house. The exterior is the
6 hardy plank cement board siding because of the extreme fire hazard in our area we have used
7 asphalt fiberglass fire proof shingles on the roof, 40-year guarantee. We are using the hardy
8 plank cement board siding and our deck even is made with an [epay] hardwood, which has a
9 class A fire rating. So there are no materials on the exterior of the house that have any less than
10 a class A fire rating except for some timber frame accents that are in the gab lings.
11
12 Chair Cassel: Could someone from the Staff bring us the sample board? Does anyone else have
13 any questions? Thank you.
14
15 Mr. Loucks: I might point out regarding the sample board we have decided to move to a little
16 darker color for the side of the house. What we are trying to do is match the foliage of the
17 Douglas fir trees for the roof and to match the bark of the Douglas fir trees for most of the trim
18 and a slightly lighter color but the same type of hu.e for the siding. So it would be a little darker
19 than the siding on the sample board.
20
21 Chair Cassel: Thank you Mr. Loucks. Do we have any questions of Staff?
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple more questions for Mr. Loucks on his materials.
24
25 Chair Cassel: I'm sorry Mr. Loucks there are a couple more questions for you. Does anyone
26 else have questions of him? No one else has any.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: On the roofing material did you look at any other sustainable alternative
29 besides asphalt shingle? Asphalt shingle has granulated copper in it, which leaches out and goes
30 down into streams.
31
32 Mr. Loucks: No we haven't at this point but if you feel that is important we would be very
33 happy to investigate it.
34
35 Chair Cassel: Thank you. I am passing that board down. Now do we have any questions of
36 Staff? Bonnie.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: I have one. It is almost a technical kind of question having to do with the
39 Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because a Variance has been granted will the Mitigated
40 Negative Declaration be revised to reflect the granting of the Variance?
41
42 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The Variance itself was determined to be exempt from
43 the California Environmental Quality Act. The Site and Design application has the Mitigated
44 Negative Declaration completed for it so we would not be revising that Mitigated Negative
45 Declaration.
46
Page 7
1 Vice Chair Packer: There is a place in the environmental analysis, which asks whether or not it
2 is in compliance with the zoning so the fact that the Variance is granted means that it is now in
3 compliance? I am talking about that aspect of it.
4
5 Ms. Grote: We can make that change and that will be made prior to the City Council meeting
6 and advertised as such.
7
8 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you.
9
10 Chair Cassel: Do we have any other questions of Staff? Pat.
11
12 Commissioner Burt: Ijust wanted to ask Staff to confirm the site line rendering from six feet
13 above the center line of Skyline that the pump house and the storage tanks are not visible from
14 that location on Skyline. Does Staff concur with that?
15
16 Ms. Grote: Yes we do based on a site visit and looking at the topographic map.
17
18 Chair Cassel: Karen.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: In common with Commissioner Packer's earlier comments Attachment
21 F and also the findings for the Variance, the findings for the Variance in particular, but the
22 zoning compliance table before it goes to Council, Attachment F says that the setbacks, the
23 parking, the accessory buildings all are conforming and they areasterisked indicating that there
24 were Variances attained. It seems that they are not in compliance and they are asterisked and
25 says that Variances, it seemed like that would be a clear way of describing them. Because it is
26 true they are not in compliance with the standards but there were Variances granted so shouldn't
27 the answer be no?
28
29 Ms. Grote: We can modify that and say no with the Variances granted and then reference the
30 attachment in the findings.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Then the same thing would apply to number four finding for the
33 Variance. Could Staff clarify for me please? It seems like the language here is the project shall
34 be constructed to meet all the City's development regulations and it includes Planning, Building,
35 Fire, etc. and it seems like the statement that Ijust made and the statement that Bonnie made
36 earlier it seems like that wouldn't be appropriate language to use given that it is really not in
37 compliance and that is the purpose of the Variance. So it seems like it is in conflict with itself.
38
39 Ms. Grote: We can clarify that language and say yes the project would be built in compliance
40 with the exception of the front setback for which a Variance has been granted and again
41 reference those findings.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: I think that would be clarifying. Thank you very much. Madam Chair,
44 this is a quasi-judicial item.
45
Page 8
1 Chair Cassel: Yes, does anyone want to indicate that they have seen the site or talked to anyone
2 in particular?
3
4 Commissioner Holman: I visited the site and I did speak with the owner. Basically he just
5 showed me the lay of the land when I was there.
6
7 Commissioner Bialson: I did not speak with anyone with regard to this.
8
9 Commissioner Griffin: I did visit the site and spoke with the owner.
10
11 Chair Cassel: I also visited the site and the owner explained what he was proposing.
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: I also visited the site and spoke with the owner in the same way that the
14 others have spoken with the owner, I believe.
15
16 Commissioner Burt: I did visit the site but I did not speak with anyone. Just for a point of
17 clarification site visits I don't think we have to declare those in quasi-judicial matters.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Just to make it complete I did visit the site and I just spoke to the owner
20 to get directions.
21
22 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Would someone like to make a
23 motion or do you want discussion first?
24
25 Commissioner Holman: What about the public?
26
27 Chair Cassel: I'm sorry. I don't have any cards at this time. Are there any cards for anyone else
28 to speak? Would the owner like to have three minutes to make any other comments?
29
30 Mr. Loucks: No I will wait on it. I feel like I have explained what is going on. No thank you
31 unless you folks have any other questions. I believe that I have said all I really need to say
32 tonight. Thank you very much.
33
34 Chair Cassel: Thank you. I am sorry, thank you for reminding me. Karen, do you have a
35 question?
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Yes. I have just 'a few. Unless I overlooked something, the pump
38 house, propane tanks all of this the Staff presentation indicated that the pump house I think
39 would be the same materials as the main house. What about the propane tank and the other
40 tanks? Will they be screened, will they be sheathed in the same'materials or will they be
41 screened and I didn't see that indicated on the plans? Can you further explain that for me please?
42
43 Ms. Campbell: Yes. From the pump house all of the accessory equipment and the structure
44 itself will not be visible from the street. So there was no additional screening proposed to be
45 installed, a landscape screening around that area. The materials themselves are proposed to be
Page 9
1 the same types of materials as the house. Maybe Harvey can expand more if that has changed. I
2 am not sure ifthat has changed since I wrote my report for that.
3
4 Chair Cassel: I believe he said in his testimony that it was the same.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: But it is not indicated on the plans unless I overlooked it. Is it there and
7 I just didn't see it?
8
9 Ms. Campbell: One of the details in the conditions of approval is to include additional detailed
10 plans when they resubmit for building permit to include additional information to show that
11 detail.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Clarification on a couple of things. There are an awful lot
14 of trees that are being removed and I didn't find, certainly it is possible that I overlooked it but
15 perhaps the Arborist could respond to this. If there are a lot of trees being removed isn't there a
16 mitigation program that goes on? I just did not find that in the conditions of approval and it is
17 certainly possible I overlooked it.
18
19 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: The majority ofthe trees that are proposed for removal
20 after evaluation are bay, madrones and actually on the plans there are many oaks listed. The
21 Tree Ordinance actually differentiates between several species of oaks and all of the oaks on this
22 property that are being removed are actually canyon live oaks and not the coast live oak that our
23 ordinance covers. So technically the Tree Ordinance would not mandate or require mitigation
24 replacement trees for those oaks. So virtually all of the trees that are being removed here are not
25 covered by the tree ordinance and are just a collection of bays and canyon live oaks and there are
26 a couple of Douglas firs being removed also. So we determined that it would not be in conflict
27 number one with the Tree Ordinance for this project and the forest that surrounds the project has
28 enough tree cover so we felt that it was not necessary to require mitigation planting per se. If the
29 Commission feels like they want extra planting to occur that could be considered but the Tree
30 Ordinance does not actually require that.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Then another one. Condition number ten says that the grading plan will
33 be reviewed by Public Works and it talks about driveway and turnaround should be applied
34 above the tree roots of adjacent trees. It doesn't mention City Arborist. It seems like that would
35 be something that the Arborist should review as well as Public Works. Could Mr. Dockter
36 please respond to that?
37
38 Mr. Dockter: Yes, Staff will be reviewing that with Public Works. In addition there will be a
39 project arborist that will be attached to this whole grading operation also. So any grading that
40 occurs in and amongst trees would be reviewed by the applicant's arborist and the plans would
41 be reviewed also by Public Works and myself also in Planning.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then condition number 19 I was a little bit confused by that.
44 The silt fence barriers added to the Type I tree barriers along tree 14, 66 and those. Can you
45 clarify for my edification if you would, could you clarify that for me please?
46
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Dockter: You are referring to condition 19?
Commissioner Holman: Condition 19, silt fence barriers.
Mr. Dockter: Yes, those trees were just down slope of some grading occurring so Staff felt that
it was necessary to have extra fencing, silt fencing that would protect the trees from migrating
soil and mud and that type of thing that would occur below graded operations. So it was an
added protection measure.
Commissioner Holman: Okay then I think just a quick two more. The monitoring program there
are three findings that refer to that 13, 18 and 24. Having been around several construction sites
as I am reading this it calls for a final Arborist report to be provided to the City and understand
that, then it talks about four week intervals if I am interpreting it correctly for the City Arborist
to do inspections. Knowing how fast construction can happen on site sometimes is Staff
comfortable with four-week interval inspections as opposed to maybe something more frequent?
. ,
Mr. Dockter: The four-week interval inspections are actually the construction project's arborist
and not City Staff that would be performing these .. It is the applicant's responsibility to furnish
that arborist and inspection the same as any electrical inspection or grading inspection would
occur. The project arborist merely monitors the construction and makes sure all the tree fencing
is up and adequate.
Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have any questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Dave, as a follow up to your comments on the indigenous trees that are not
protected under our tree ordinance aside from what looks like an ample retention of the forest
here. your comments brought to mind a concern that our Tree Ordinance seems to have been
designed for the flatlands. It was designed to address the species that are of significance that are
native to the flats that we have here. Here we have canyon live oak that is a sister species to
interior and coastlive oak and yet it is outside of it. We don't in this circumstance but we could
have a very significant tree there. We have indigenous Douglas fir, which are our second most
prominent conifer to this area and no protection for that in its area where it is a native species. It
would be something different if we have a Douglas fir down in the flats here where it never did
grow. I wanted to see as a follow up to this meeting would you be interested looking as part of
our Zoning Ordinance Update and the l~mdscaping aspects on whether there should be
consideration of additional protected significant species in the Open Space areas where they are
native species? I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask that that be put in the parking lot of
considerations for the Open Space district.
Ms. Grote: We can put that in the parking lot for follow up actions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Tree Protection Ordinance is actually in Title 8, which is a different part of the Municipal
Code than the Zoning Ordinance, but we can certainly look at it after we have completed the
Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Burt: And yet.
Page 11
1 Chair Cassel: Is that related to this application before us?
2
3 Commissioner Burt: I will wrap this up real quickly. I will minimize my comments on this in
4 exchange. We do have significant native landscaping aspects to the ZOU in the Open Space area
5 and there would be very much a tie-in between native landscaping and tree protection and that is
6 thereason I wanted to look at the appropriateness of integrating those two.
7
8 Ms. Grote: As the Commission gets into the Open Space discussion we can revisit that.
9
10 Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions related to this project? Annette.
11
12 Commissioner Bialson: Is it time to make a motion yet?
13
14 Chair Cassel: It certainly is. We can make a motion and then make comments.
15
16 MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Bialson: I move the Staff Report, yvhich recommends that we approve the Site
19 and Design, find the project will not result in significant environmental impacts and I believe that
20 is about it.
21
22 SECOND
23
24 Commissioner Burt: I will second.
25
26 Chair Cassel: Do you want to be sure that is with the Mitigated Negative Declaration?
27
28 Commissioner Bialson: I think I mentioned that.
29
30 Chair Cassel: Okay. 'Would you like to speak to that and then we will go down for comments?
31
32 Commissioner Bialson: I find that the applicant has done a rather good job of addressing all the
33 concerns that we have with regard to the Open Space area and I think it is a good project.
34
35 Chair Cassel: Pat.
36
37 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to concur. I think the applicant has done an admirable job
38 of complying with the guidelines that we have in our Open Space district. I hope that we see
39 future applications as sensitive to those guidelines as this applicant has been.
40
41 Chair Cassel: Lee, do you want to make comments?
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I would also concur. I think it is an admirable project and the applicant
44 should be commended. I do have a couple of minot concerns (hat I would like to share with my
45 colleagues. One has to do with the porous asphalt driveway. It is not the material because that
46 has been redefined but the contour is going from 2235 down to 2215. I think that the driveway is
Page 12
1 going to have a tendency over time to begin to tear and rip as the soil moves and begins to move
2 downhill. So it would I think be in the applicant's interest because it is in the Open Space to
3 look at either building some sort of retaining wall along the edge there or putting in ties across
4 the driveway that is almost like having it bound so that it is not going to start to slide downhill.
5 That would be one comment. The second comment is with regard to the roofing material. I am
6 not a big fan of asphalt composition shingle in the Open Space where the copper granules will
7 begin to leach out. This is a hilly site so the water is going to flow downhill and eventually that
8 copper is going to hit a stream and begin to affect the algae. I wouldn't say this except again it is
9 in the Open Space and so I think that some alternative material should be looked at maybe a
10 cemetious or fire free type shingle. I think it would also look a lot nicer. The fire free I am using
11 this as an example because they make rather large ones and they approximate cedar shakes.
12
13 Chair Cassel: Those are just comments?
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
16
17 Chair Cassel: Pat, you had a question?
18
19 Commissioner Burt: Yes. Commissioner Lippert just raised an issue that I was unaware of. Are
20 these granular shingles copper containing?
21
22 Ms. Grote: We had not explored that. The applicant may have some information about that.
23
24 Commissioner Burt: Yes, and just before Commissioner Lippert does elaborate Staff may want
25 to be considering whether or architectural guidelines on architectural copper would apply if in
26 fact these are copper containing given that that is really one of our most toxic materials that we
27 might be using in construction if in fact that is the case.
28
29 Ms. Grote: The roof material being proposed is not prohibited. When we had done our study
30 with our water control quality staff the copper downspouts and gutters were prohibited but not
31 roof material that has minor amounts of copper in it. So this type of roof material is still
32 permitted within the City.
33
34 Commissioner Burt: Lisa, I have a pretty strong recollection of that whole discussion given that
35 I had a decade involvement in industrial pollutant protection. I don't recall ever any discussion
36 about presence of copper in those materials not that we had a conscious deliberation that said
37 well we have considered this and the amount of copper in there we made some determination
38 that that's environmentally benign but in fact I don't think there was any awareness on behalf of
39 the Commission that this was an issue. There may have been on the ARB but if it is an
40 implication that we approve those materials knowing that they contain toxic copper I don't think
41 that is the case.
42
43 Ms. Grote: It had not been identified as one of the materials that was potentially dangerous.
44 There may be amounts of copper in there it wasn't identified as being potentially dangerous. We
45 can look into that again as a follow up action at a future date if we want to amend our policy.
46
Page 13
1 Chair Cassel: Again, I think what we are doing here is suggesting to the applicant since it is not
2 against our rules that he looks at these issues to see that he is not using, since he is being so
3 concerned about this. I know he has very specific requirements to meet fire codes also. Go
4 ahead Lee but I don't want t a long discussion on whether we should have these.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: That is one ofthe reasons why I didn't ask to make an amendment or
7 additional conditions to the motion here. Just to be clear it really is more of a problem I think in
8 the urban area where we actually have water flowing into the storm sewers and then it goes out
9 into the Bay. This could potentially be a problem up in the hills.
10
11 Chair Cassel: Then we should deal with that in another format.
12
13 Bonnie, do you want to make comments?
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: In the interest of moving this along I will support the motion. I appreciate
16 the respect for the environment that the applicant has shown in designing this project and taking
17 into consideration all the aspects of the area. So I will support the motion.
18
19 Chair Cassel: Michael.
20
21 Commissioner Griffin: I too will support the motion. I think it is by and large an excellent
22 example of planning a home in the Open Space district.
23
24 Chair Cassel: Karen.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: It is really a pleasure to review a project where an applicant has such
27 sensitivities to the environment in the Open Space district. It is really a pleasure so I will
28 certainly be supporting the motion.
29
30 I have three small amendments to propose. One of them is consistent with an action we have
31 taken previously and that is with condition number 15. Previously this Commission I do believe
32 has added that the staging, storage and parking area be reviewed and approved by the City
33 Arborist. I would like to add that as a condition consistent with our previous actions. That
34 would be one friendly amendment.
35
36 Chair Cassel: Say that again.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: That condition number 15 the stage, storage and parking areas should
39 be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, the Planning Arborist. We have done this
40 before.
41
42 Chair Cassel: But my understanding is, and we have also not done it one time, that the Planning
43 Arborist does look at that.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: If it is a condition of approval it is assured.
46
Page 14
1 Commissioner Bialson: I am not willing to accept that amendment so let's talk about another if
2 you wish.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: The second one is that the tree-monitoring program be additionally
5 monitored by the City Arborist at a periodic review period deemed appropriate by the City
6 Arborist. That was the second friendly amendment.
7
8 Commissioner Bialson: Let's hear your third.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: The third one is that the grading plan,condition number· 1 0, be
11 reviewed and approved by the City Arborist as well as Public Works.
12
13 Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate all your concerns and I think the City Staffwill handle this
14 in an appropriate manner. I think we are getting into too much detail. This is a policy-making
15 organization that we are to be part of and I think they have heard our interests in this area and are
16 concern. I don't feel it is appropriate to add to the motion at this time.
17
18 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
19
20 Chair Cassel: Is there any discussion? Then I will call the motion. All those in favor please say
21 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? Anyone abstaining? The motion passes then seven to nothing
22 and that is to support the proposal at 5061 Skyline Boulevard, a request by Harvey and Pam
23 Loucks for Site and Design Review.
24
25 When does this go to City Council?
26
27 Ms. Campbell: This is tentatively scheduled for March 14.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Madam Chair?
30
31 Chair Cassel: Thank you.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Since my amendments were not approved by the maker ofthe motion I
34 would like to try them as separate motions to add those three conditions if I could get a second.
35
36 Chair Cassel: I think that should have taken place before we had the motion to vote.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: It is a separate motion.
39
40 Chair Cassel: Okay, go ahead.
41
42 MOTION
43
44 Commissioner Holman: I would move to add to condition number 15 to add that the Planning
45 Arborist review the staging, storage and parking area, that a tree monitoring program by the City
46 Arborist be added at periods deemed appropriate by the City Arborist and that grading plan,
Page 15
1 condition number 10, be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist as well as Public Warks.
2 That would be my motion.
3
4 Chair Cassel: Is there a second. There is no second. That motion dies for lack of a second.
5 Thank you very much for your presentation Mr. Loucks. Thank you everyone for a good
6 discussion and thank you for coming Staff.
7
Page 16
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is rural, contains no buildings or other structures, and is heavily vegetated. The
project site is located in the northwest portion of Santa Clara County on the eastern slope of
the Santa Cruz Mountains in the City of Palo Alto. The topography of the site consists of
relatively steep slope. The proposed house would not be visible from adjacent lots or the
surrounding area.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required
Santa Clara Valley Health Department -Septic System Review
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Transportation/Traffic
Quality
Agriculture Resources Land UselPlanning Utilities/Service Systems
Air Quali~y Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Biological Resources Noise
Cultural Resources Population/Housing
X Geology/Soils Public Services
Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the X
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Page 2 of26
I find that the proposed proj ect 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 environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis ,as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed proj ect could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Clare Campbell
Project Planner
Steve Emslie, AICP
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and constructiori as well as
operational impacts.
Page 3 of26
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant: Potentially "Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) ''Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state vyhere they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into' the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. .
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is 'selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Page 4 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an 1,3 X
existing or projected air quality
violation
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment 1,3 X
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1,3 X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a X
candidate, sensitive, or special 1,3,A
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 community X
identified in local or regional 1,3,A
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but 1,3,A X
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
Page 6 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established 1,3,A X
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a 1,3,A X
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation 1,3
Plan, Natural Community X
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat .conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a 1,3,C X
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
b) Cause a sUbstantial adverse
change in the significance of an 1,3,C X
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource 1,3,C X
or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside 1,3,C X
of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most 1,3,4 X
recent Alquist·Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
Page 7 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground 1,3,4,B X
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including 1,3,4,B X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 1,3,4 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? 3,4 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and 3,4,B X
potentially result in on-or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe
Uniform Building Code (1994), 1,3,4,B X
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste 1,4,B X
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routing transport, 1,6 X
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable X
upset and accident conditions 1,6
involving the release of
Page 8 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, na na
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code na na
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use na na
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the· na
project result in a safety hazard na
for people residing or working
the project area? .
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response 3,6 X
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are 3,6 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge 1,4 X
requirements?
Page 9 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially . Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level 1,4 X
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the 1,4
alteration of the course of a X
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially 1,4 X
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or
off-site?
e) . Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned 1,4 X
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade 1,4 X
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary 1,3,4 X
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood
hazard area structures which 1,3,4 X
Page 10 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 1,4 X
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, 1,4 X
or mUdflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pro·ect:
a) Physically divide an established 1,3 X
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not 1,2,3 -
limited to the general plan, X
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or 1,3 X
natural community conservation
plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that 1,3 X
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site 1,3 X
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established 1,2,3 X
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground 1,2,3 X
Page 11 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
c) A SUbstantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above 1,2,3
levels existing without the
project?
d) A SUbstantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient 1,2,3
noise levels in the project X
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been na na
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing na na
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new 1,3 X
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
i nfrastructu re)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of 1,3 X
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the 1,3 X
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
Page 12 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? 3,6 X
Police protection? 1,3 X
Schools? 1,3 X
Parks? 1,3 X
Other public facilities? 1,3 X
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities su.ch that 1,3 X
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of X
recreational facilities which 1,3
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is SUbstantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system X
(Le., result in a substantial 1,3
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
Page 13 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless ImpaCt
Mitigation
Incorporated
cumulatively, a level of service X
standard established by the
county congestion management 1,3
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an na
increase in traffic levels or a na
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
. sharp curves or dangerous 1,5 X
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency 1,5,6 . X
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking X
capacity? 3,5
g) . Conflict with'adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting 3,5 X
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control 3,4 X
Board?
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing faCilities, 3,4 X
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion X
of eXisting facilities, the 3,4
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and 3,4 X
resources, or are new or
Page 14 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources SignificClnt Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
expanded entitlements needed? .
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate 3,4 X
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to 3,4 X
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations 3,4 X
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten X
to eliminate a plant or animal 1,2,3,A
community, reduce the number B,C
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project ·have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are 1,2,3,A X
considerable when viewed in B,C
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse 1,2,3,A X
effects on human bei"-gs, either B,C
Page 15 of26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially
Resources Significant Significant
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
directly or indirectly?
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Adopted July 20, 1998
2. Palo Alto Municipal Code/Title 18 (Zoning)
3. Planner's general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development
4. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
5. City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
6. City of Palo Alto Fire Department
7. City of Palo Alto Transportation Division.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Tree Report, dated July 24, 2002 and addendum dated April 7, 2004
B. Soils Report, dated June 25, 2002
C. Project Plans, dated June 18, 2004
D. Williamson Act Properties, 2003-2004 Report
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Page 16 of26
L Aesthetics
Although the site is located in a scenic area, given the topography of the site and dense
vegetation on and surrounding the site, no scenic vistas would be affected by this proj ect. While
the project area is located in a scenic area, the house and improvements would not be visible
because the house would have a significant setback from Skyline Boulevard and dense
vegetation in the area would screen the house from view. Several non-protected trees would be
removed from the area where the house would be constructed. Other than trees, there are no
scenic resources (i.e. historic buildings, outcroppings, etc.) that would be impacted by the
proposed development. Furthermore, the development would be required to meet the City's
design standards and would conform to current architectural and landscaping standards.
Residual Impact: Less Than Significant. While the project is the introduction of a private
residence and other improvements, the project would not result in a
significant aesthetic impact. Completion of the City's review process for
the proposed new building and site improvements will ensure that
development of the site is in compliance with the zoning code, the City's
open space policies, the City of Palo Alto's design standards, and
compatible with the surrounding development and.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
IL Agriculture Resources
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
Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agriculture use. A
Williamson Act Contract regulates the allowable land uses on the site. The list of Compatible
Uses contained the contract includes "uses permitted by the regulations of the OS Open Space
District". PAMC Section 18.71.050 lists the permitted uses in the OS zone district. Single
family dwellings are a permitted use.
Residual Impact: No Impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss or conversion
of agricultural land in the City of Palo Alto or the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
IlL Air Quality
The project proposes to develop a private residence on a vacant site that is within a rural area.
The project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, which allows single-family homes
in the open space area. No sensitive receptors are located in the general vicinity of the site.
Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, and construction
vehicle traffic would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emission that
could affect local and regional air quality. Construction dust could affect local air quality during
Page 17 of26
implementation of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months
creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed.
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD)
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve grading, paving, and landscaping which
has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne
particulate matter. Dust· related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be
mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Long Term/Operational hnpacts: Long-term and operational project emISSIOns would stem
primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected
to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts
related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected
by air quality problems. The project is on eleyen acres and is not immediately adjacent to
sensitive receptors. The project is not expected to have a significant impact.
The proposed project consists of a residential use. This use does not typically create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not
expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete.
The following measures are standard conditions ofproject approval, implemented for the
duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least
two feet of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept and watered daily.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
• Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Residual hnpact: Less Than Significant. The proposed project would not create significant
local or regional air quality impacts. Short-term air quality impacts associated will be reduced to
less than significant levels with the implementation of the city's standard conditions of approval.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Page 18 of26
IV. Biological Resources
While the project site is within a rural area that 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. .
The proposed project is expected to remove 47 trees as a result ofproject construction. The trees
to be removed by the proposed project are shown in the project file and plans. None ofthe trees
to be removed are considered protected trees, and standard conditions of approval would ensure
the project meets the City's tree protection requirements. Chapter 8~ 1 O.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 tree trunk
or basal flare is 'located in the building footprint, the tree removed shall be replaced in
accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical ManuaL
Residual Impact: Less than significant impact..
Mitigation Measures: None Required
V. Cultural Resources
The site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area. There are no known prehistoric or
historic sites within the project area or within two miles of the project site.
Residual Impact: No Impact. The project would not result in any impacts to cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
VL Geology and Soils
A soils report was prepared for the project. A copy of the soils report can be found in the project
file.
The site is located in a hilly area, with relatively high potential for erosion and the possibility of
landslides. Land sliding is not considered a direct impact to the proposed improvements due to
the topography of the proposed improvement area and the amount of dense vegetation
surrounding the improvement area.
Dense vegetation on the project site makes the potential for natural soil erosion in this area
relatively smalL However, construction activities, such as grading, could increase the likelihood
of soil erosion on site.
Septic System
The percolation characteristics of the site soils, the very deep bedding mapped in the area, and
the apparent absence of near-surface groundwater, and the use of a dispersed delivery system
Page 19 of26
will tend to limit adverse ground saturation. Additionally, slope stability analyses suggest that
the slopes immediately surrounding the proposed building site will not be destabilized.
Seismic Hazards
The greater San Francisco BayArea is recognized by Geologists and Seismologists as one of the
most active seismic regions in the United States. Three major fault zones pass through the Bay
Area in a northwest direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century
strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the
San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth's crust that extends for at least 700 miles
along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward,
Calaveras Fault Zones, and other faults.
During 1990, the U.S. Geological Survey cited a 67 percent probability that a Richter magnitude
7 earthquake, similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, would occur on one of the active
faults in the San Francisco Bay Re'gion in the following 30 years. Recently, this probability was
increased to 70 percent, as a result of studies in the vicinity of the Hayward Fault. A 23 percent
probability is still attributed specifically to the potential for a magnitude 7 earthquake to occur
along the San Andreas fault by the year 2020.
Ground Rupture -The lack of mapped active fault traces through the site, suggests that the
potential for primary rupture due to fault offset on the property is low.
Ground Shaking -The San Francisco Bay Area is known to be· an area of historic seismicity.
Although fault rupture is unlikely within the proposed building foundation and immediate site
development area, very strong ground shaking (with maximum peak horizontal ground surface
accelerations approaching 0.65g) could occur at the property due to an earthquake on the
northern segment of the San Andreas fault during the economic lifetime of the planried
structures.
Landsliding -Landsliding on the property is not considered to pose a threat to the proposed
improvements. Slope stability analyses indicate acceptable factors of safety for both static and
anticipated seismic conditions. Additionally, the proposed septic drainfield does not appear to
present a significantly increased risk of slope instability. Nevertheless, to reduce the risk of
future landsliding, surface runoff from new hard surfaces should be collected and transported to
appropriately sited and constructed energy dissipaters.
The seismic effects on the project could be potentially significant. The Geotechnical report
contains recommendations concerning project site grading, construction methods, waterproofing,
surface drainage, utilities, and erosion controls.
The proposed proj ect includes measures to reduce potential erosion and seismic impacts to a less
than significant level.
Residual hnpact: The project includes mitigation measures to reduce potential erosion and
seismic impacts to a less than significant level. The project would not
Page 20 of26
result in significant geologic impacts associated with the development
with ground failure or locate a septic system on soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic system.
Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures contained in
the soils report, in addition to compliance with standard conditions of the City of PalQ Alto
Public Works Department, would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant
level.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project is within a high fire danger areadue to the dense vegetation in the area. No known
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 agriculture or any other operations
that would require the lise, storage or disposal of hazardous materials on the site.
Residual Impact: In the event of a wildland fire, residents and structures could be exposed to
a significant risk of loss and injury. Implementation of standard
conditions of approval would reduce impacts from the risk of wildland fire
to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: none required
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
The conversion of open space to an urban use would result in approximately 8,042 square feet
increase of impermeable surface. This, in tum, would increase runoff from the site. Due to the
topography of the site it is possible that the project could result in significant erosion from
increased surface runoff. As a result, a drainage-erosion control plan is included in the project
. consistent with Section 16.28.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to limit drainage and erosion
from the site. A silt fence is proposed down slope of the project. The developed area of the site
would drain to a series of on-site drainage pipes or catch basins where the water would be
collected and piped to rock dissipaters.
The project could result in additional sources of non-point source pollution in surface runoff
from grading activities and oil and grease from parked vehicles.
The project site is not within a 100-year floodplain and would have no impact on 100-year flood
flows. Therefore, the project would not expose people or property to flood hazards associated
with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject to seiche or tsunami and is not located near any
water retention facility.
The proj ect includes installation of a septic system to serve the proposed residence. Wastewater
from the septic tank would be pumped to drainfield trenches.
Page 21 of26
Residual Impact: Development of the proposed project could result in additional sources of
non-point source pollution from grading, oil and grease· from parked cars, and asphalt.
Construction activities could result in short-term runoff from graded surfaces and soil
accumulation in streets and driveways, which could increase sedimentation in stormwater. The
project would not result in flooding on or off site. With the proposed mitigation, the project
would not result in a significant impact on water quality or a substantial increase in erosion and
sedimentation and therefore would be less than significant, given standard conditions of approval
that include compliance with the City's Grading and Erosio:ri Control Ordinance, NPDES Permit
administered by the RWQCB, and limitation of.site grading and drainage work to the period
between April 15 and October 15.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
IX. Land Use Planning
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Open Space/Controlled Development and
the Zoning Designation is OS (Open Space). Single family dwellings are a permitted use in the
OS District. The immediate surrounding land uses are residential uses on large parcels. Given
the proposed design of the proj ect, which minimizes potential effects to the surrounding uses
(residential), it is compatible with all adjacent development. The project is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use designation of Open Space.
The project would result in an incremental, but insignificant, loss of open space. The project
meets all zoning regulations except for the encroachments into the 200-foot special setback,
along Skyline Boulevard, for an accessory building and equipment for which a Variance was
granted.
Section 18.71.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) limits impervious area and building
coverage in the OS zone district to 3.5%. The project site is 11.1 acres allowing for 16,832
square feet of impervious area. The proposed lot coverage is 4,376 square feet or 0.9% of the
total site.
Residual Impact: The proposed project will not result in any significant land use impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None required
X Mineral Resources
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
designation means that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified
the City for other resources. However, there is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan
that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Page 22 of26
XIIL Public Services
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 fire and police service by an
incremental amount. However, the police and fire departments have sufficient resources to
accommodate moderate growth within the City. In addition, local schools will not see a
measurable increase in demand as a result ofthis project. Therefore, the increased demand will
not result in the need to expand existing facilities or construct new facilities.
Residual Impact: Less than significant impact. The project would not result in any
significant impacts on the physical environment as a result of increased
demand for police, fire, and school services.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XlV. Recreation
The addition of one housing unit in Palo Alto will not cause physical deterioration of any
recreational facilities .. In addition, the proposed project will not increase the local popUlation to a
point where expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities will be needed.
Furthermore, the undeveloped portions of the property would remain as private open space.
The project is subject to Development Impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries
based on one single family home in excess of 3,000 square feet.
Residual Impact: Less than significant. City development standards, development fees and
specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts
of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Xv. Transportation/Traffic
The project sit~ is not located on a designated emergency route. The project will not generate air
or significant automobile traffic and will not cause or contribute to known traffic hazards.
Given the location of the site in a rural area, emergency access is limited: The proposed driveway
would allow emergency access to the site from Skyline Boulevard.
Implementation of the proposed project will result in truck trips to haul excavated materials off
site. Construction crews and equipment will also increase the daily trips on Skyline Boulevard.
Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and truck trips would generally occur during
off-peak hours.
Page 24 of26
r'
'J
Residual Impact: Less than significant. The proposed project will not significantly increase
traffic in the local area. However, construction of the project would result
in localized congestion due to truck traffic associated with construction.
Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and are not anticipated to
substantially disrupt peak traffic hours.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply: The City of Palo Alto does not provide service to this remote location. The site
will maintain its own water supply via a well. There is no impact to the City's water usage or
supply.
Sewage Treatment: Based on general rule general rates for single family homes, the proposed
project would generate approximately 600 gallons of effluent per day. The site would be served
by a septic system.
Solid Waste: The City of Palo Alto does not provide service to this remote location. The property
owner will dispose of solid waste at a land fill.
Residual Impact: No Impact. The project would not exceed the capacity of existing
utility systems.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XVIL Mandatory Findings of Significance
The project will contribute to vegetation and wildlife impacts associated with development of
a vacant parcel to urban uses. However, project impacts on the natural and human
environment would not be significant. The proposed new residence will not substantially
degrade the surrounding environment, impact wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate
important examples of cultural history or pre-history. When considered with other current
projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project is not anticipated to result in
cumulatively significant impacts.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS
Page 25 of26